In the last 9-12 months, those of us in the financial services industry might be forgiven for thinking that the main issues to face and gain advantage from in the near future is going to be who will win the lion’s share of the mobile market when it comes to payment transactions. This arises because of the huge rise in smart phone sales all over the world in the last few years and in more recent times, the fast growth of tablet computer devices (both of which create great mobility for customers). While both of these innovations are certainly exciting and possibly “game-changing” in this article, we will briefly explore whether they will soon really become the dominant payment channel of choice, as many people seem to believe they will. We will therefore look at arguments for and against this prediction.
The arguments for the case
Without doubt, along with wireless access internet innovation, smart phones are a transformational technology. This technology allows individuals to perform many everyday tasks that previously were done via traditional telephony or even on paper in some instances. The same can be said for the newer but just as ground-breaking tablet computers. The added value here is that the larger screen format allows what was previously done mainly on a personal computer in one location to be done almost anywhere because of the high level of portability and touch screen convenience. As we all know, very soon even aeroplanes will allow the use of both smart phones and tablets via the internet (and the last bastion of true peace from cell phones and computers will disappear).
Of course the two “gorilla issues” here are the use of NFC or Near Field Communication technology which allows the smart phone to become a credit or debit card, and the linked facility of a smart phone as an electronic or digital wallet, capable of storing value and therefore having the capacity to readily make may payment transactions including person-to-person payments.
NFC has a short range of about 1.5 inches. This makes it a good choice for secure transactions, such as contactless credit card payments. Smart phones can therefore “tap and go” using infrastructure already in place for credit card systems such as MasterCard’s PayPass program or Visa’s payWave.
Smart phones can now also replace customer loyalty cards, not only by storing retail store credit card information, but also automatically select the right customer loyalty card information for a given consumer purchase.
The “digital wallet” concept could extend to coupons and other offers. Consumers can now download coupons from a web site, which they exchange by having their phone swiped at the point of purchase. The retailers benefit from being able to track who their coupons are sent to and how they are used.
If you add in the benefits of smart phone tickets (for trains, buses an car parking for example) and the use of phone-based barcodes (as infrastructure allows) we can quickly see how this technology will dramatically change the consumer purchase experience in many areas (especially at the retail level) and help many merchants to gain efficiencies and save costs.
The arguments against the case
In considering the arguments against the proposition that mobile technology is soon going to be the dominant channel for payments, it is worth establishing a few facts about smart phones and tablets. Firstly, there were around 450 million smart phones sold around the world in 2011. As there are about 5.5 Billion mobiles phones in total (which means that around 80% of the world population own one) smart phones represent about 8% of the total-a number expected to go to 12% within 5 years and 20% in 10 years-meaning around 1.2 billion smart phones will be owned by 2022.
As far as tablet computers are concerned, there were around 75 million of them sold in 2011 (compared to 440 million PC sales), with predictions of at least 250 million in 5 years and 750 million with 10 years (although these figures are much more speculative of course). As a percentage of all computers (there are around 1.3 billion computers in use in total in 2011), this means that tablets represent about 4% of the market today, predicted to grow to 7% in 5 years and 15% in 10 years. The reason that % growth of tablets is much slower proportionally than smart phones by the way is that PCs have a much longer life, with companies and individuals holding on to them for 4-5 years or longer before upgrading or changing.
Given the above, it is difficult to see how mobile technology can quickly become the dominant channel for payment, even before we consider other issues. At best in 5 years time only 12% and 7% of consumers (with each technology respectively) will be able to pay on their tablets and smart phones (and only if they wish to of course). This is higher in the younger age groups naturally and is still a lot of transactional volume but not dominant by any means.
To add to the above, about 75% of all payments transactions today take place “offline”. In other words, bills are sent out by physical mail or email (with PDF attachments) and are still paid over the counter with cash and debit/credit cards and by cheques in the mail or by phone or voice over IP. Larger payments are made via internet banking via direct debit and by businesses via bank payment systems such as wire transfer for instance. It is hard to see any of these processes changing quickly, especially in the B2B space, although cheque volumes will continue to decline at the expenses of electronic payment for both consumers and businesses.
Perhaps the other major disadvantage of mobile technology is one of available infrastructure. All smart phones and tablets create much greater accessibility but are only useful when they are connected. 3G and 4G is expensive today for large data packets and access to the Internet relies on old-world “hubs”-most of which rely on old copper-wire systems. NFC technology is perhaps less encumbered as it is more like “Bluetooth” but it still needs a device with which to communicate, and in a payment situation this means that every retailer needs a reading device. Installing such devices is happening of course but it will take time and will only penetrate those market verticals where it makes sense.
So what does it all mean?
Now that we have all of the above figures and facts on both the plus and minus side what does all this mean for payments? Well, its obvious that the times are changing and in the consumer world we will see very fast rises in payments being made not only online in years to come (at the expense of more traditional methods) but a large proportion of these will be made on smart phones and tablet computers, especially in the under 30 population. However, as a proportion of the total transactional volume it is likely to be much slower than the media hype suggests. This is because retail (where much of the take-up will occur, makes up only 10% of the consumer transactional volume. Consumers themselves, of course, are typically only half of the total market transactional volume and less than a quarter of the payment value. The rest is taken up by Government and Business and both of these are likely to take many years to adopt mobile technology into mainstream payment systems-perhaps 15-20 years. For this reason, and the fact that we continue to leverage old system payment “rails”, we can conclude that mobile devices are interesting and growing as a payment option but will be far from dominant for a few years yet. Smart phones (with NFC technology) are therefore likely to slowly replace the “bricks and mortar” retail market (helping customers to migrate from a plastic card to a mobile device). And as both smart phones and tablets are effectively mobile enabled PC’s that will make all forms of payments easier and increase/accelerate on-line payment activity this will be a good thing for both merchants and consumers when it comes to the ease with which future payments can be made.
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Friday, 17 February 2012
Are PDF Invoices better or worse than old-fashioned paper invoices?
A recent study published by AIIM on progress towards the paperless office makes interesting reading as it relates to current billing practices. The study is worth taking note of because apart from AIIM being a credible non-profit research business which has been around for almost 70 years, as the chart below indicates it was a very large survey of companies of almost all sizes. In addition, the study went to companies in multiple sectors all over the world (although around 50% of the companies were in the US).
What the Study Showed
As we all know, the capability to exchange PDF files as e-mail attachments is said to have reduced the volume of paperwork traded between companies and small businesses considerably. However, this study says that the reduction is minimal at best, but quite possibly creates more paperwork than it saves.
In specific terms, the study revealed the following facts about PDF as invoices
• Over three-quarters of people surveyed say one of the first things they do with a PDF-based invoice… is print it out.
• From the 77% of the 395 respondents that print out their invoices, 16% scan the invoices right back into the system for use as……PDF attachments.
• 10% of people print out their PDF invoices multiple times.
• 10% of people say they print out at least one copy for archival purposes.
The chart relating to this data is shown below:
What is happening to Invoices?
Although many of the larger companies in the survey seem to be pressing to have all-electronic billing and payment systems, it seems that we are still a long way from this ideal (perhaps as few as 2-3% of companies have a fully digital system which includes no printing and only digital storage systems). However, many businesses are at least trying to save on postage and paper costs by sending invoices as PDF files, or as faxes. However, even here the invoices are often printed out as paper, sometimes at both ends, which almost completes defeats the object. Such practices obviously do not generally result in a reduction of paper within the receiving business in particular. As we saw from the statistics earlier in total, 77% of respondents are likely to print at least one copy of a PDF invoice, and 16% admit to printing it out and then scanning it in for capture, as do 31% receiving a faxed invoice.
Are new more “intelligent” PDF’s the answer?
Most respondents to the AIIM survey were referring to the basic PDF files generated by their Acrobat software, which are obviously less feature-rich than intelligent PDFs have become in recent years with functionality such as XML files being included with all the relevant invoices and embedded payment buttons and even digital signature capture systems. Although this is undoubtedly an improvement, the adoption of these more function-rich PDFs has been very slow and in most cases has had little impact on the rate at which companies of all sizes continue to print out and scan invoices. This is partly because, a PDF is still regarded as paper in real terms-it may be electronic but it is not easy to digitize in ways that are useful for data transfer and exchange. Full digitalization is therefore the goal of many organizations and this is why scanning remains popular. In this regard, when asked what the biggest drivers are for scanning, responses were mainly about data-exchange, availability and flexibility (as the chart below from the survey indicates).
So what are the implications?
PDF’s are very convenient as a way to send documents electronically but far less so when it is an invoice. The speed of the sending process is better than physical mailing but so many people are printing it out anyway, it is far short of being the “path to digitization” that companies of all sizes want or need. Fully digital invoices seem to be a much more attractive option and when an invoice can be presented in full in third-party cloud-based portals such as those such at PaySwyft, any company gets all of this immediately.
What the Study Showed
As we all know, the capability to exchange PDF files as e-mail attachments is said to have reduced the volume of paperwork traded between companies and small businesses considerably. However, this study says that the reduction is minimal at best, but quite possibly creates more paperwork than it saves.
In specific terms, the study revealed the following facts about PDF as invoices
• Over three-quarters of people surveyed say one of the first things they do with a PDF-based invoice… is print it out.
• From the 77% of the 395 respondents that print out their invoices, 16% scan the invoices right back into the system for use as……PDF attachments.
• 10% of people print out their PDF invoices multiple times.
• 10% of people say they print out at least one copy for archival purposes.
The chart relating to this data is shown below:
What is happening to Invoices?
Although many of the larger companies in the survey seem to be pressing to have all-electronic billing and payment systems, it seems that we are still a long way from this ideal (perhaps as few as 2-3% of companies have a fully digital system which includes no printing and only digital storage systems). However, many businesses are at least trying to save on postage and paper costs by sending invoices as PDF files, or as faxes. However, even here the invoices are often printed out as paper, sometimes at both ends, which almost completes defeats the object. Such practices obviously do not generally result in a reduction of paper within the receiving business in particular. As we saw from the statistics earlier in total, 77% of respondents are likely to print at least one copy of a PDF invoice, and 16% admit to printing it out and then scanning it in for capture, as do 31% receiving a faxed invoice.
Are new more “intelligent” PDF’s the answer?
Most respondents to the AIIM survey were referring to the basic PDF files generated by their Acrobat software, which are obviously less feature-rich than intelligent PDFs have become in recent years with functionality such as XML files being included with all the relevant invoices and embedded payment buttons and even digital signature capture systems. Although this is undoubtedly an improvement, the adoption of these more function-rich PDFs has been very slow and in most cases has had little impact on the rate at which companies of all sizes continue to print out and scan invoices. This is partly because, a PDF is still regarded as paper in real terms-it may be electronic but it is not easy to digitize in ways that are useful for data transfer and exchange. Full digitalization is therefore the goal of many organizations and this is why scanning remains popular. In this regard, when asked what the biggest drivers are for scanning, responses were mainly about data-exchange, availability and flexibility (as the chart below from the survey indicates).
So what are the implications?
PDF’s are very convenient as a way to send documents electronically but far less so when it is an invoice. The speed of the sending process is better than physical mailing but so many people are printing it out anyway, it is far short of being the “path to digitization” that companies of all sizes want or need. Fully digital invoices seem to be a much more attractive option and when an invoice can be presented in full in third-party cloud-based portals such as those such at PaySwyft, any company gets all of this immediately.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
What is Likely to Occur in the Payments and Online Billing Landscape in the Next Few Years?
Although it is always extremely difficult to make predictions about an industry which changes as fast as online payments (including online bill presentment) there are always a few “clues, trends and patterns” around to draw upon. As a result and as it’s close to the start of a new year, in this article we will seek to make a few predictions about what is likely to happen in the near future. To do this we will use a number of key headings that are often seen to be important in this industry.
The general changes that we can expect
In broad terms, the payments landscape (which is still very paper or physical form-based in so many ways) will continue to switch inexorably to an online environment at many levels with “barcode type” paper to replace physical monetary exchange products like cheques and cash in the next few years and possibly even Card (debit, credit and pre-paid) in the more distant future. The market will increasingly use smart phone and PC tablet as a channel, although the infrastructure required to support this will take as long as 20 years to make the full transition.
Online person-to-person or P2P payments will increase using mobile devices or social network sites as the initiation point. In the early days of this transition, bank account details will need to be known but accessing and using cleared funds (as the way customers want to interact will each) will see more new players emerging outside of the traditional banking community.
While banks are competing with each other for market share, new players entirely are likely to be able to capture payment market share away from their base, by better satisfying the needs of market. PayPal, Google & Apple are good examples of this or it may be entirely new companies that are yet to become well-known.
The cultural shift to perform everyday functions on-line is still in its infancy. While on-line shopping is growing exponentially, other behaviour will move more towards online. For example, full digital bill presentment and payment services.
So, if that’s the general scene, let’s look at what might happen under a few specific headings
TIMELINESS & CHOICE
Customers want to choose when they pay, day or night, 24/7, 365 days of the year and whether to pay ‘just in time’ or in real time. Customers want very wide payment type options and the ability to choose which option best suits each payment activity.
In many cases, recipients of funds prefer real-time or same-day settlement. Surety of settlement in real time will be critical in most cases.
ACCESSIBILITY
Customers want to access the same payment options regardless of the channel by which they pay. For example, this may be the same payment choice regardless of whether they are in a store, at an on-line store or paying a bill.
Merchants will increasingly prefer to receive funds from the same payment options, regardless of channel, to reduce vendor management and improve internal efficiencies.
EASE OF USE
Customer like payment types that are easy to use and one they understand and trust. Mobile, PC tablet & social network usage is making the introduction of new payment processes easier to manage and educate the market, but present other challenges for the payment industry as a whole.
EASE OF INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PROCESSES
Online payments will grow steadily and will ultimately dominate the payment landscape. However, capability and capacity to integrate with internal computer systems will be a barrier that will need to be overcome. Seamless integration with Point-of-Sale systems, on-line store, ERP, inventory systems and billing engines will be a critical factor.
Cloud-based technology will assist in keeping capital outlay lower and at manageable levels while providing high speed access to the payment instruments and associated internal systems.
RELIABILITY
The new payment instruments and channels that arise will need to be ever more reliable. Traditional payment providers can still play a huge role in ensuring that high quality standards and suitable interoperability is maintained ensure the instrument can be trusted.
Convenience can sometimes trump reliability, but both having both is likely to be a winning combination.
PRICING
New payment instruments will have to be cost effective is all cases and this will start to happen slowly.
What is blurring the price aspect is merchants will try to demand low transactional costs even when real demonstrable value is being added. For example, instant bank transfer provides significantly more benefits to both a consumer and a merchant and yet the expectation would be that this should be priced the same as, or even lower than, the transactional cost to write a paper-based cheque.
Another example is that presenting an electronic invoice with a wide range of payment options would be significantly more cost effective than a biller managing their own bill collection, even though individual transaction pricing by payment type may be more expensive in that particular silo.
SECURITY AND ROBUSTNESS
Similar to the reliability heading, secure and robust payment instruments will be increasingly essential, although convenience and ease-of-use are considerations that will often dilute how secure and robust the new instrument has to be in practice.
INTEROPERABILITY
All online digital Payment systems will have a much higher degree of interoperability with other systems than they do now. This will apply to the movement of money (where necessary) and more particularly to data transmission. The intelligent design of this data transition process (nationally and internationally) will be done by at least one large player outside current financial services sector or by a new market entrant.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Much richer risk management tools will be available and these will have sophisticated algorithms that track all payment patterns and provide risk attenuation or control options at every level. This is likely to be a new software-based market entrant.
Summary
No-one has a “crystal-ball” to predict the future, but the online payments space is changing rapidly around us. It will be interesting to see whether, we are still heading in the general direction that this article suggests in 12 months time and whether some of the forecasts are starting to come true or not.
The general changes that we can expect
In broad terms, the payments landscape (which is still very paper or physical form-based in so many ways) will continue to switch inexorably to an online environment at many levels with “barcode type” paper to replace physical monetary exchange products like cheques and cash in the next few years and possibly even Card (debit, credit and pre-paid) in the more distant future. The market will increasingly use smart phone and PC tablet as a channel, although the infrastructure required to support this will take as long as 20 years to make the full transition.
Online person-to-person or P2P payments will increase using mobile devices or social network sites as the initiation point. In the early days of this transition, bank account details will need to be known but accessing and using cleared funds (as the way customers want to interact will each) will see more new players emerging outside of the traditional banking community.
While banks are competing with each other for market share, new players entirely are likely to be able to capture payment market share away from their base, by better satisfying the needs of market. PayPal, Google & Apple are good examples of this or it may be entirely new companies that are yet to become well-known.
The cultural shift to perform everyday functions on-line is still in its infancy. While on-line shopping is growing exponentially, other behaviour will move more towards online. For example, full digital bill presentment and payment services.
So, if that’s the general scene, let’s look at what might happen under a few specific headings
TIMELINESS & CHOICE
Customers want to choose when they pay, day or night, 24/7, 365 days of the year and whether to pay ‘just in time’ or in real time. Customers want very wide payment type options and the ability to choose which option best suits each payment activity.
In many cases, recipients of funds prefer real-time or same-day settlement. Surety of settlement in real time will be critical in most cases.
ACCESSIBILITY
Customers want to access the same payment options regardless of the channel by which they pay. For example, this may be the same payment choice regardless of whether they are in a store, at an on-line store or paying a bill.
Merchants will increasingly prefer to receive funds from the same payment options, regardless of channel, to reduce vendor management and improve internal efficiencies.
EASE OF USE
Customer like payment types that are easy to use and one they understand and trust. Mobile, PC tablet & social network usage is making the introduction of new payment processes easier to manage and educate the market, but present other challenges for the payment industry as a whole.
EASE OF INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PROCESSES
Online payments will grow steadily and will ultimately dominate the payment landscape. However, capability and capacity to integrate with internal computer systems will be a barrier that will need to be overcome. Seamless integration with Point-of-Sale systems, on-line store, ERP, inventory systems and billing engines will be a critical factor.
Cloud-based technology will assist in keeping capital outlay lower and at manageable levels while providing high speed access to the payment instruments and associated internal systems.
RELIABILITY
The new payment instruments and channels that arise will need to be ever more reliable. Traditional payment providers can still play a huge role in ensuring that high quality standards and suitable interoperability is maintained ensure the instrument can be trusted.
Convenience can sometimes trump reliability, but both having both is likely to be a winning combination.
PRICING
New payment instruments will have to be cost effective is all cases and this will start to happen slowly.
What is blurring the price aspect is merchants will try to demand low transactional costs even when real demonstrable value is being added. For example, instant bank transfer provides significantly more benefits to both a consumer and a merchant and yet the expectation would be that this should be priced the same as, or even lower than, the transactional cost to write a paper-based cheque.
Another example is that presenting an electronic invoice with a wide range of payment options would be significantly more cost effective than a biller managing their own bill collection, even though individual transaction pricing by payment type may be more expensive in that particular silo.
SECURITY AND ROBUSTNESS
Similar to the reliability heading, secure and robust payment instruments will be increasingly essential, although convenience and ease-of-use are considerations that will often dilute how secure and robust the new instrument has to be in practice.
INTEROPERABILITY
All online digital Payment systems will have a much higher degree of interoperability with other systems than they do now. This will apply to the movement of money (where necessary) and more particularly to data transmission. The intelligent design of this data transition process (nationally and internationally) will be done by at least one large player outside current financial services sector or by a new market entrant.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Much richer risk management tools will be available and these will have sophisticated algorithms that track all payment patterns and provide risk attenuation or control options at every level. This is likely to be a new software-based market entrant.
Summary
No-one has a “crystal-ball” to predict the future, but the online payments space is changing rapidly around us. It will be interesting to see whether, we are still heading in the general direction that this article suggests in 12 months time and whether some of the forecasts are starting to come true or not.
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Should an organization design its own online billing solution?
Although there is a lot of third-party online billing/invoicing solutions available in the market these days, none of these can be entirely tailored to any one organization’s needs. For this reason, it must be worth spending a little time looking at whether a billing solution can be developed or built with internal accounting staff and IT people. This would mean that an exact specification could be put forward and, if it was executed to plan, this could be integrated with other internal systems. Once the system was up and running, customers would “flock” to it and the cost of sending out paper bills in the mail would reduce considerably. This would all have the potential to save a lot of money-wouldn’t it? In this brief blog post, let’s look at the six major issues that need to be considered in choosing to go down this path.
Before we look at these six issues, let’s briefly consider an organization’s motivation to undertake a project such as this. The typical logic of most companies is “After an order, we interact with customers today by sending out a paper bill, but it is expensive. Putting that ‘piece of paper’ on our own web site will be cheaper and we can still directly interact with our customers via our web site”. Hence, the internal business case might be “We invoice 100,000 customers a year and our current cost to bill by paper is £15 each time or £1.5 million. As the cost of doing billing via our web site will be £10 (including new internal operating expenses), or a 35%/£0.5 million saving an internal capital build cost of £0.5 to £1 million would be justified.” Where this model is flawed is that research tells us that only 4-6% of customers pay at any Biller’s site (for a lot of reasons that we have covered in other blog posts). This means the real cost per invoice ends up being higher than issuing paper and no ROI is achieved. Under these circumstances, a project is on very shaky ground before it starts. However, despite these problems, let’s assume that an organization stills wants to go ahead. What are the issues to think about?
The first issue to consider is can the organization build an application of sufficient scope and quality? After all, few companies would try to build spreadsheet or word processing software from “scratch” these days. These are usually far cheaper and superior to anything that could be developed in house. In general, widely available software designed for mass market consumption is considerably superior to applications developed in house, primarily because of the economies of scale that can be achieved. An online billing solution would not be any different in this regard? In other words, any in-house solution would probably lack the security, features and reporting capabilities needed and would not be as robust, stable or as user-friendly as a professionally developed application built by specialists in that field.
The second big issue to consider is the overall interface design of your potential online billing system.On the surface, an in-house solution provides the greatest scope to design this interface to suit all corporate requirements. However, third-party apps have changed greatly in recent years and allow almost as much customization and any one organization is likely to need. In addition, a third-party app (if well chosen) is likely to have designed in easy payment reconciliation and settlement (to the organization’s accounting system and even their bank –by electronic bill-matching means). This is often missed by in-house system builds or just adds major development costs to the project, thereby making the return on investment much worse than planned.
The third issue to consider is the need to protect an organization’s customers when using the new online billing solution. At a basic level this means bearing the additional cost to purchase a Secure Socket Layer or SSL certificate and to develop a payment plug-in, which necessitates a proper software development cycle (including specification design, build, test and installation). This potential cost alone can finance years of service from an online invoicing application service provider. In addition, as soon as the organization is processing credit or debit cards online, they may need to be PCI compliant (and bear the cost of maintaining this and being audited to meet bank standards). Direct debit mandates (if they are to be made available) are a further cost in this area that need to be taken into account, as these have high admin costs associated with them.
The fourth issue to consider is the immediate and tangible additional costs that are likely to be incurred with an in-house developed solution. A typical online application development project would likely have at least some of the following tasks, if not more: Needs analysis assessment; Application interface design; Database design; Technology assessment, costing and procurement; Server and security setup; Application build and Testing; Trial Rollout; ALPHA and BETA Testing; Full Production Rollout; Ongoing Support and Maintenance etc. Whether these tasks are done internally or out-sourced, projects of this nature will take many months (and possible more than a year) to complete and result in costs of many tens of thousands depending on the complexity of the application and the security level required. For a large organization this may even run into hundreds of thousands or even millions. This is a large capital cost that may not get a real return on the investment for many years.
Quite apart form the direct costs there are also the indirect costs to consider, because many application development project costs are hidden. The use of internal resources to stop working on other projects or tasks or even give up their “normal” job for a while is one example of a hidden cost that often goes unaccounted for. Every hour a development team member spend developing a new billing system, they could be focusing on an organization’s core business activities. In addition, if project development team members are not experienced in online invoice application development, there will be a high learning cost added to the project, and increase the chance the project will be delayed or even fail completely.
The fifth issue to consider is system-side issues. In other words, an in-house billing system (which is likely to be available 24/7) will inevitably have system costs that can easily be overlooked when initial specifications are done by an organization. There is the cost of the space and setup required for a secure and sufficiently large and secured server. This hosting environment will need careful protection (in maintenance terms and against hacking) proper virus protection and firewalls. In addition, back-ups will typically need much more care than other applications that may be running in the organization.
Last but not least such a project must consider the overall risks that are involved. Recent research suggests that over 35% of all technology projects fail in large and sophisticated companies (who have well-trained IT departments). Although this means that almost 65% succeed, this is not to say that even they were not over time or over budget before they “succeeded” of course. If an organization is therefore not a “large and sophisticated company”, chances are a new online application development project is at even greater risk of failing and/or being late/going over budget.
Conclusion
It is clear that developing an in-house online billing and payment system is a highly time sensitive, high cost and high risk undertaking. Some organizations may be tempted to start the process but may lack the expertise to specify it properly, build it to plan, run it cost effectively and maintain it well (and with the necessary level of security, compliance and control).
With all of these issues to consider, as well as the fact that third-party systems are now so well-developed (and in many cases available on a pay-as-you-go basis) this looks to be an easy decision, especially when given serious thought. In answer therefore to the question we asked at the outset- Should an organization design its own online billing solution? We think the answer is simply No (or at least only if it thinks it can overcome all of the obstacles mentioned above).
Before we look at these six issues, let’s briefly consider an organization’s motivation to undertake a project such as this. The typical logic of most companies is “After an order, we interact with customers today by sending out a paper bill, but it is expensive. Putting that ‘piece of paper’ on our own web site will be cheaper and we can still directly interact with our customers via our web site”. Hence, the internal business case might be “We invoice 100,000 customers a year and our current cost to bill by paper is £15 each time or £1.5 million. As the cost of doing billing via our web site will be £10 (including new internal operating expenses), or a 35%/£0.5 million saving an internal capital build cost of £0.5 to £1 million would be justified.” Where this model is flawed is that research tells us that only 4-6% of customers pay at any Biller’s site (for a lot of reasons that we have covered in other blog posts). This means the real cost per invoice ends up being higher than issuing paper and no ROI is achieved. Under these circumstances, a project is on very shaky ground before it starts. However, despite these problems, let’s assume that an organization stills wants to go ahead. What are the issues to think about?
The first issue to consider is can the organization build an application of sufficient scope and quality? After all, few companies would try to build spreadsheet or word processing software from “scratch” these days. These are usually far cheaper and superior to anything that could be developed in house. In general, widely available software designed for mass market consumption is considerably superior to applications developed in house, primarily because of the economies of scale that can be achieved. An online billing solution would not be any different in this regard? In other words, any in-house solution would probably lack the security, features and reporting capabilities needed and would not be as robust, stable or as user-friendly as a professionally developed application built by specialists in that field.
The second big issue to consider is the overall interface design of your potential online billing system.On the surface, an in-house solution provides the greatest scope to design this interface to suit all corporate requirements. However, third-party apps have changed greatly in recent years and allow almost as much customization and any one organization is likely to need. In addition, a third-party app (if well chosen) is likely to have designed in easy payment reconciliation and settlement (to the organization’s accounting system and even their bank –by electronic bill-matching means). This is often missed by in-house system builds or just adds major development costs to the project, thereby making the return on investment much worse than planned.
The third issue to consider is the need to protect an organization’s customers when using the new online billing solution. At a basic level this means bearing the additional cost to purchase a Secure Socket Layer or SSL certificate and to develop a payment plug-in, which necessitates a proper software development cycle (including specification design, build, test and installation). This potential cost alone can finance years of service from an online invoicing application service provider. In addition, as soon as the organization is processing credit or debit cards online, they may need to be PCI compliant (and bear the cost of maintaining this and being audited to meet bank standards). Direct debit mandates (if they are to be made available) are a further cost in this area that need to be taken into account, as these have high admin costs associated with them.
The fourth issue to consider is the immediate and tangible additional costs that are likely to be incurred with an in-house developed solution. A typical online application development project would likely have at least some of the following tasks, if not more: Needs analysis assessment; Application interface design; Database design; Technology assessment, costing and procurement; Server and security setup; Application build and Testing; Trial Rollout; ALPHA and BETA Testing; Full Production Rollout; Ongoing Support and Maintenance etc. Whether these tasks are done internally or out-sourced, projects of this nature will take many months (and possible more than a year) to complete and result in costs of many tens of thousands depending on the complexity of the application and the security level required. For a large organization this may even run into hundreds of thousands or even millions. This is a large capital cost that may not get a real return on the investment for many years.
Quite apart form the direct costs there are also the indirect costs to consider, because many application development project costs are hidden. The use of internal resources to stop working on other projects or tasks or even give up their “normal” job for a while is one example of a hidden cost that often goes unaccounted for. Every hour a development team member spend developing a new billing system, they could be focusing on an organization’s core business activities. In addition, if project development team members are not experienced in online invoice application development, there will be a high learning cost added to the project, and increase the chance the project will be delayed or even fail completely.
The fifth issue to consider is system-side issues. In other words, an in-house billing system (which is likely to be available 24/7) will inevitably have system costs that can easily be overlooked when initial specifications are done by an organization. There is the cost of the space and setup required for a secure and sufficiently large and secured server. This hosting environment will need careful protection (in maintenance terms and against hacking) proper virus protection and firewalls. In addition, back-ups will typically need much more care than other applications that may be running in the organization.
Last but not least such a project must consider the overall risks that are involved. Recent research suggests that over 35% of all technology projects fail in large and sophisticated companies (who have well-trained IT departments). Although this means that almost 65% succeed, this is not to say that even they were not over time or over budget before they “succeeded” of course. If an organization is therefore not a “large and sophisticated company”, chances are a new online application development project is at even greater risk of failing and/or being late/going over budget.
Conclusion
It is clear that developing an in-house online billing and payment system is a highly time sensitive, high cost and high risk undertaking. Some organizations may be tempted to start the process but may lack the expertise to specify it properly, build it to plan, run it cost effectively and maintain it well (and with the necessary level of security, compliance and control).
With all of these issues to consider, as well as the fact that third-party systems are now so well-developed (and in many cases available on a pay-as-you-go basis) this looks to be an easy decision, especially when given serious thought. In answer therefore to the question we asked at the outset- Should an organization design its own online billing solution? We think the answer is simply No (or at least only if it thinks it can overcome all of the obstacles mentioned above).
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
How many bills or invoices are sent out each year and to whom are they sent?
Electronic billing has been around in one form or another for over a decade now but according to the Swiss billing research firm Billentis, the penetration of e-bills versus traditional bills remains relatively weak. They estimate the proportion of e-bills to be anywhere between 4% and 9% of the total invoices sent out, but even this range applies only in relatively large businesses (and is increasingly invisible in medium and small businesses), making the overall take up perhaps nearer half of these figures. Furthermore, the proportional take-up of e-billing varies greatly in the two major parts of the market-the Business to Consumer or B2C market, and the Business to Business or B2B market. In this brief article, the aim will therefore be to try to quantify the relative size of the billing market, or perhaps more simply to determine just how many individual bills or invoices are sent out each year and to whom they are sent.
The table below illustrates the typically billing flows, in percentage terms, in these two major market sectors (B2C and B2B) and according to whether a company is large, medium-sized or small.
Although bills can be sent from one consumer to another (C2C), this is a relatively small market (estimated to be less than 1% of all bills). The two large sectors are therefore between businesses and their consumers (B2C) and between businesses (B2B). The B2C and B2B market is close to 50/50 but the B2C market is slightly larger in transactions but quite a lot smaller in terms of transactional value. Let’s look at these two markets in a little more detail individually.
The B2C market
As the above chart shows, large businesses send out the greatest proportion of B2C bills (43.3% of all bills). Medium sized companies send out only 5% and small or micro companies only 1.7%. In the UK as an example, the estimated total volume of bills is around 5 billion per annum. This means that large companies with more than 250 employees send out 2.165 billion bills. Given that the UK adult working population is around 26 million, this means that each consumer gets 80 bills a year on average, from a large organisation of one form or another or around 7 bills a month. They get a further 1.5 bills from medium and small companies, making an average of 8.5 bills a month in total.
As a different example, in the US, the estimated total volume of bills is around 42 billion per annum. This means that large companies with more than 250 employees send out 18.18 billion bills. Given that the US adult working population is around 130 million, this means that each consumer gets 140 bills a year on average from a large organisation of one form or another or around 11.5 bills a month. They get a further 2.5 bills from medium and small companies, making an average of 13 bills a month in total. The higher average consumer bill volume versus the UK may be explainable by two major factors. Illegal workers in the US are not counted in the adult working population figures and the US has Federal and State based system businesses, making for less truly national “super-billers”. For example, in a large utility may bill a large % of the UK population for its gas and electricity needs (a task that may involve a hundred utilities in the US). This makes the average bill volume artificially higher than it may be in reality, perhaps by as much as 15%.
In terms of value, there are no accurate figures relating to the average bill size or amount. However, it is estimated that the average “ticket” in the B2C market is around £65 to £75 (or $75-$95 in the US).
The B2B market
As the above chart also shows, large businesses send out the largest proportion of B2B bills (11.6% of all bills) to other large companies but medium sized companies (employing 50 to 249 employees) send out almost as many at 10% and even small companies account for 7.5% of the total. However, the picture is complicated further by the additional B2B billing that is done between Large, medium and small companies. Hence, in aggregate, large companies send out 15.8% of all bills (11.6%+1.7%+2.5%).
Once again using the UK as an example, this equates to 790 million bills. In the US this would be 6.64 billion bills. Just to complete the picture, medium companies in aggregate send out 18.3% of all bills and small companies in aggregate send out 15.9%. Although this makes the B2B transactional volumes very similar, in aggregate the medium sized companies send out proportionally the most bills.
In terms of value, accurate figures relating to the average bill size or amount are even harder to come by, as companies have very high variations from very low amounts (such as £15 0r £25 for example) to very high amounts (running to thousands or hundreds of thousands in some cases). In addition, there are no formal records kept in terms of average B2B invoice amounts. However, it is broadly estimated that the average “ticket” in the B2B market is around £1500-£2,000 (or $1250-$2500 in the US).
The penetration of ebilling
Once again, definitive figures are difficult to find when it comes to the penetration of ebilling. However, in the B2C market, it is large companies that have made the most progress, led by utilities and telecommunication/mobile phone companies typically. Here, the estimates are that penetration has been in the range 7-9% in Europe, and a little less (6-8% in the US). In medium companies, these numbers are reported to be less than a third of these figures or only 2-3% penetration and in small companies, considerably less than 1%. This leaves a lot of upside potential to switch to ebilling of one form or another across all three organisational size levels.
In the B2B market, it is apparent that accounting software and separate specialist billing software has made some significant inroads into large companies. However, this has largely translated into accounting system driven invoices (or email based invoices with PDF attachments, which are but fully digital bills of course) and as often as not, this has therefore become an additional channel to paper-based invoices, with many organisations reluctant to eliminate physical invoices too quickly. There are also many additional complexities in the B2B market when it comes to billing. This includes integration with purchase order systems, dealing with credit noting, bill line-item dispute handling and multiple decision-maker issues for bill sign-off. This is not to mention the accurate and legal handling of taxation issues. All of this means that the decision to take up ebilling in the B2B space usually involves quite high up-front capital expenditure (on new or changed software), long integration times, changed internal processes and the need to cover monthly fees (e.g. software maintenance and per user etc). There are alternatives to this approach but as yet, interest and take up has been very low.
Summary
A lot of bills are sent out every year in any country with a reasonably well-developed economy. However, it is important to understand that the B2C and B2B markets are very different in terms of transactional volumes, average “ticket” sizes and needs. It is also important to recognise that volumes vary greatly in large, medium and small companies, and their relative interest in making their invoicing practices more efficient will often be very different. This means that the potential for electronic billing take-up is still very high (perhaps as much as 95% of all bills are still not fully digital) but the route to increase overall levels of ebilling take-up needs to be carefully planned for each market segment, in order to be successful.
The table below illustrates the typically billing flows, in percentage terms, in these two major market sectors (B2C and B2B) and according to whether a company is large, medium-sized or small.
Although bills can be sent from one consumer to another (C2C), this is a relatively small market (estimated to be less than 1% of all bills). The two large sectors are therefore between businesses and their consumers (B2C) and between businesses (B2B). The B2C and B2B market is close to 50/50 but the B2C market is slightly larger in transactions but quite a lot smaller in terms of transactional value. Let’s look at these two markets in a little more detail individually.
The B2C market
As the above chart shows, large businesses send out the greatest proportion of B2C bills (43.3% of all bills). Medium sized companies send out only 5% and small or micro companies only 1.7%. In the UK as an example, the estimated total volume of bills is around 5 billion per annum. This means that large companies with more than 250 employees send out 2.165 billion bills. Given that the UK adult working population is around 26 million, this means that each consumer gets 80 bills a year on average, from a large organisation of one form or another or around 7 bills a month. They get a further 1.5 bills from medium and small companies, making an average of 8.5 bills a month in total.
As a different example, in the US, the estimated total volume of bills is around 42 billion per annum. This means that large companies with more than 250 employees send out 18.18 billion bills. Given that the US adult working population is around 130 million, this means that each consumer gets 140 bills a year on average from a large organisation of one form or another or around 11.5 bills a month. They get a further 2.5 bills from medium and small companies, making an average of 13 bills a month in total. The higher average consumer bill volume versus the UK may be explainable by two major factors. Illegal workers in the US are not counted in the adult working population figures and the US has Federal and State based system businesses, making for less truly national “super-billers”. For example, in a large utility may bill a large % of the UK population for its gas and electricity needs (a task that may involve a hundred utilities in the US). This makes the average bill volume artificially higher than it may be in reality, perhaps by as much as 15%.
In terms of value, there are no accurate figures relating to the average bill size or amount. However, it is estimated that the average “ticket” in the B2C market is around £65 to £75 (or $75-$95 in the US).
The B2B market
As the above chart also shows, large businesses send out the largest proportion of B2B bills (11.6% of all bills) to other large companies but medium sized companies (employing 50 to 249 employees) send out almost as many at 10% and even small companies account for 7.5% of the total. However, the picture is complicated further by the additional B2B billing that is done between Large, medium and small companies. Hence, in aggregate, large companies send out 15.8% of all bills (11.6%+1.7%+2.5%).
Once again using the UK as an example, this equates to 790 million bills. In the US this would be 6.64 billion bills. Just to complete the picture, medium companies in aggregate send out 18.3% of all bills and small companies in aggregate send out 15.9%. Although this makes the B2B transactional volumes very similar, in aggregate the medium sized companies send out proportionally the most bills.
In terms of value, accurate figures relating to the average bill size or amount are even harder to come by, as companies have very high variations from very low amounts (such as £15 0r £25 for example) to very high amounts (running to thousands or hundreds of thousands in some cases). In addition, there are no formal records kept in terms of average B2B invoice amounts. However, it is broadly estimated that the average “ticket” in the B2B market is around £1500-£2,000 (or $1250-$2500 in the US).
The penetration of ebilling
Once again, definitive figures are difficult to find when it comes to the penetration of ebilling. However, in the B2C market, it is large companies that have made the most progress, led by utilities and telecommunication/mobile phone companies typically. Here, the estimates are that penetration has been in the range 7-9% in Europe, and a little less (6-8% in the US). In medium companies, these numbers are reported to be less than a third of these figures or only 2-3% penetration and in small companies, considerably less than 1%. This leaves a lot of upside potential to switch to ebilling of one form or another across all three organisational size levels.
In the B2B market, it is apparent that accounting software and separate specialist billing software has made some significant inroads into large companies. However, this has largely translated into accounting system driven invoices (or email based invoices with PDF attachments, which are but fully digital bills of course) and as often as not, this has therefore become an additional channel to paper-based invoices, with many organisations reluctant to eliminate physical invoices too quickly. There are also many additional complexities in the B2B market when it comes to billing. This includes integration with purchase order systems, dealing with credit noting, bill line-item dispute handling and multiple decision-maker issues for bill sign-off. This is not to mention the accurate and legal handling of taxation issues. All of this means that the decision to take up ebilling in the B2B space usually involves quite high up-front capital expenditure (on new or changed software), long integration times, changed internal processes and the need to cover monthly fees (e.g. software maintenance and per user etc). There are alternatives to this approach but as yet, interest and take up has been very low.
Summary
A lot of bills are sent out every year in any country with a reasonably well-developed economy. However, it is important to understand that the B2C and B2B markets are very different in terms of transactional volumes, average “ticket” sizes and needs. It is also important to recognise that volumes vary greatly in large, medium and small companies, and their relative interest in making their invoicing practices more efficient will often be very different. This means that the potential for electronic billing take-up is still very high (perhaps as much as 95% of all bills are still not fully digital) but the route to increase overall levels of ebilling take-up needs to be carefully planned for each market segment, in order to be successful.
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Is it "Safe" to View and Pay Bills online?
As Internet technology now allows bills or invoices to be presented electronically and then paid at the presenting web site (whether this is a bank’s site, merchant site or third-party site) in this brief article we investigate whether this carries any significant risk from a payee/consumer or merchant perspective.
Perhaps the very first test of potential “riskiness” when using any electronic presentment and payment (or EBPP for short) web site is whether it is secure. The vast majority of web page addresses, also known as URLs, typically begin with "http." However, to pay bills online, the web page should always start with "https," which signifies a secure socket layer or SSL connection (or one in which data is fully encrypted). This typically means that you can see a padlock icon, usually in the top or bottom corner of the browser window (or in some cases it may even turn the URL address background green or light blue). Clicking the padlock icon will often reveal the site's security certificate (and allow you to read about the particular protection that this affords).
Now that a consumer knows that he or she is on a secure site, the next step is to ensure that the login process is secure. A good site will usually give a consumer two options-to pay instantly or as a guest, and to register on the site to use it again and save time on the next occasion the consumer uses it. As a guest, a web site will typically only ask for an email address and then ask a consumer how he or she would like to pay from the options they make available. This may mean entering debit or credit card details for example, which should then give a consumer the option to confirm the transaction (and then as a further security step run the transaction through 3D secure-a process used by major credit card companies as an added XML layer for online credit and debit card transactions. Visa call this process “Verified by Visa”, MasterCard call it “MasterCard SecureCode”, JCB International call it “J/Secure” and American Express call this “SafeKey”. Overall then, a well-constructed site will offer a safe payment system for consumers (and there are card and bank protections on fraud and low limitations on consumer liability in any case). Even so, consumers should also look for extra safety in specific statements on any given EBPP site about PCI compliance (or payment card industry standard adherence) and/or that credit/debit card data or numbers will not be stored or saved in any way (and if they are, that they will be fully encrypted and tokenised as a further protection against theft or fraud).
When registering (either before or after a bill had been viewed and paid) a well-designed and safe web sites will ask a consumer to set up a user name and password that he or she can remember and that identifies the consumer every time he or she uses the site in the future. The site may also ask for additional data such as email address, physical address, date of birth, driving license number or even passport number. In some cases, they may go yet further and ask security questions to help validate a consumer’s identity in the case of a future forgotten login ID or password. Although these may seem personal and even intrusive, these steps are all designed to protect consumer security and ensure that only one person is able to see the bills posted and to effect payment of any kind. In other words, this process allows the web site operator (financial institution or merchant) to know the customer (a process they call KYC) and protect everyone’s security to the best of their ability.
In general, research suggests that consumers worry most about using credit and debit cards on online sites of any kind. However, in the world of bill payment (as opposed to online shopping for example) these risks are not as great. Even a person with a stolen credit card number is highly unlikely to pay a bill for another person (assuming he or she had the bill details to enter) and even if they did, the risk would be with the merchant and not the consumer. So what about merchant side risk?
For a merchant, the greatest risk is charge-backs. This is where the credit or debit card holder disputes the transaction anywhere up to 6 months after the transaction date. Charge backs can either be because the card holder disputes that they made the transaction at all (i.e. it was a stolen or fraudulent), or because they did receive anything in return for the payment that was made. The second reason for chargebacks in the bill pay space is very rare, but the first reason-theft or fraud is obviously quite common (with total estimated costs of just under £1 billion in the UK in 2010). This is why online billpay web sites need to take so much care to ensure that card holders (who are not present as they are in a retail transaction) are who they say they are.
Summary
In the final analysis, for those EBPP sites that have a clear secure socket payment layer (SSL), have clear statements about security of information and sound compliance and a well-structured registration process, consumers face very low levels of risk (with a very low liability even when a rare problem may arise in any case). The merchant however, faces potentially much more risk arising from both debit and credit card fraud (and therefore possible charge-backs), but risk this can be mitigated with good consumer checking processes that are made easy for every customer to the site to use.
Perhaps the very first test of potential “riskiness” when using any electronic presentment and payment (or EBPP for short) web site is whether it is secure. The vast majority of web page addresses, also known as URLs, typically begin with "http." However, to pay bills online, the web page should always start with "https," which signifies a secure socket layer or SSL connection (or one in which data is fully encrypted). This typically means that you can see a padlock icon, usually in the top or bottom corner of the browser window (or in some cases it may even turn the URL address background green or light blue). Clicking the padlock icon will often reveal the site's security certificate (and allow you to read about the particular protection that this affords).
Now that a consumer knows that he or she is on a secure site, the next step is to ensure that the login process is secure. A good site will usually give a consumer two options-to pay instantly or as a guest, and to register on the site to use it again and save time on the next occasion the consumer uses it. As a guest, a web site will typically only ask for an email address and then ask a consumer how he or she would like to pay from the options they make available. This may mean entering debit or credit card details for example, which should then give a consumer the option to confirm the transaction (and then as a further security step run the transaction through 3D secure-a process used by major credit card companies as an added XML layer for online credit and debit card transactions. Visa call this process “Verified by Visa”, MasterCard call it “MasterCard SecureCode”, JCB International call it “J/Secure” and American Express call this “SafeKey”. Overall then, a well-constructed site will offer a safe payment system for consumers (and there are card and bank protections on fraud and low limitations on consumer liability in any case). Even so, consumers should also look for extra safety in specific statements on any given EBPP site about PCI compliance (or payment card industry standard adherence) and/or that credit/debit card data or numbers will not be stored or saved in any way (and if they are, that they will be fully encrypted and tokenised as a further protection against theft or fraud).
When registering (either before or after a bill had been viewed and paid) a well-designed and safe web sites will ask a consumer to set up a user name and password that he or she can remember and that identifies the consumer every time he or she uses the site in the future. The site may also ask for additional data such as email address, physical address, date of birth, driving license number or even passport number. In some cases, they may go yet further and ask security questions to help validate a consumer’s identity in the case of a future forgotten login ID or password. Although these may seem personal and even intrusive, these steps are all designed to protect consumer security and ensure that only one person is able to see the bills posted and to effect payment of any kind. In other words, this process allows the web site operator (financial institution or merchant) to know the customer (a process they call KYC) and protect everyone’s security to the best of their ability.
In general, research suggests that consumers worry most about using credit and debit cards on online sites of any kind. However, in the world of bill payment (as opposed to online shopping for example) these risks are not as great. Even a person with a stolen credit card number is highly unlikely to pay a bill for another person (assuming he or she had the bill details to enter) and even if they did, the risk would be with the merchant and not the consumer. So what about merchant side risk?
For a merchant, the greatest risk is charge-backs. This is where the credit or debit card holder disputes the transaction anywhere up to 6 months after the transaction date. Charge backs can either be because the card holder disputes that they made the transaction at all (i.e. it was a stolen or fraudulent), or because they did receive anything in return for the payment that was made. The second reason for chargebacks in the bill pay space is very rare, but the first reason-theft or fraud is obviously quite common (with total estimated costs of just under £1 billion in the UK in 2010). This is why online billpay web sites need to take so much care to ensure that card holders (who are not present as they are in a retail transaction) are who they say they are.
Summary
In the final analysis, for those EBPP sites that have a clear secure socket payment layer (SSL), have clear statements about security of information and sound compliance and a well-structured registration process, consumers face very low levels of risk (with a very low liability even when a rare problem may arise in any case). The merchant however, faces potentially much more risk arising from both debit and credit card fraud (and therefore possible charge-backs), but risk this can be mitigated with good consumer checking processes that are made easy for every customer to the site to use.
Monday, 12 December 2011
Should public sector organisations care about introducing e-billing?
Electronic billing (or E-billing for short) has now been around for several years and has been introduced in businesses like large utilities, telcos and many smaller commercial organisations (such as accounting and legal firms). However, it seems the switch to some form of e-billing has occurred mainly in the private sector and only in a limited way (if at all) in the public sector. In this blog article, we will explore why this is the case and whether this is because the barriers to adopting this approach are different in the public sector or perhaps that some of the benefits may not apply.
The “public sector” is obviously a catch-all term and one which envelopes large national government departments such as defence (including all the armed forces), education (including state run schools and colleges), employment, social security or tax) and smaller local government entities such as urban and rural councils. In addition, it also includes more directly community-focused organisations such as hospitals (of all sizes and kinds), the fire service and the police, etc. Clearly, this represents a wide range of very diverse types of organisation whose needs are likely to vary greatly when it comes to the flow of money in an out. Of course, not all of these organisations send out a bill or invoice or even provide a receipt. However, they all buy products and services of one kind or another and will often have some kind of internal charging method for services rendered (however infrequent this may be). This means that the vast majority of public sector organisations receive or issue bills (especially where they deal with consumers directly) and the volume can be very high. This is true of large council organisations, medical clinics and tax departments for instance and in some single organisations can run into millions of bills each year. For example, both the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre (DVLC) in the UK issue over 20 million bills a year to consumers alone. We will therefore assume that for the purposes of this article that we are referring to the whole public sector, which includes Government to Government (G2G), Government to Business (G2B) and Government to Consumer (G2C) billing.
Based on the volumes of invoices generated (estimated to be over 2 billion bills/ invoices a year across the entire UK public sector), the automation of billing and payment collection processes (to create greater efficiency) should be a primary concern of most governmental entities. However, the evidence suggests that the generally slow take up of new approaches and online technology in particular has arisen from both many perceived barriers and a lack of perceived benefits versus commercial companies. Let’s therefore look at each of these factors in turn.
The Perceived Barriers
Although there are others, there are five main perceptions that public sector organisations often have about e-billing and payment. These are listed below:
The Perceived Benefits
A manager in the public sector can review the commonly perceived benefits of e-billing as easily as a private sector manager can do so. However, he or she may feel that these benefits may not apply as much or even at all in some cases. In the chart below, we have listed six of the major perceived benefits of modern internet based e-billing and payment portals (again such as Payswyft for example) and commented on the likely applicability of each to both private and public sector organisations.
In addition to the above benefits in each of these six categories, online presentment and payment portals provide for many other valuable features. This includes, easy upload of accounting data files (by many means), file transfer compatibly, to and from all major accounting systems, convenient and useful transactional analytics and cheaper bill-storage and retrieval. In fact, public sector organisations are often required to be able to store and retrieve many years of bills and transactional records, which can now all be done in the third party online bill presentment and payment portal. This means that bills can be easily found, referred to, appended with notes or even resent and a very low cost to the organisation in question.
Every one of the above ultimately can potentially create a much more user-friendly process to send a bill and get it paid for both the organisation and its payees (whether these are other public sector organisations, businesses or consumers). Furthermore, many of the legitimate barriers to entry of the past seemed to have disappeared and the benefits of making the change are now clearer. For this reason, e-billing should now be a key strategy for every public sector organisation.
This article was written by Dr Jon Warner of Payswyft (at www.PaySwyft.com). Jon has extensive senior executive experience and has led organizations in a variety of industries through significant transitions to achieve bottom-line results. He is an expert in developing and implementing strategies in operations, marketing, sales, and corporate turnarounds. Jon is currently CEO of PaySwyft in the UK (an innovative on-line billing and payment business) and Chairman of WCOD (a management consulting and publishing business). He can be reached at jon.warner@payswyft.com.
The “public sector” is obviously a catch-all term and one which envelopes large national government departments such as defence (including all the armed forces), education (including state run schools and colleges), employment, social security or tax) and smaller local government entities such as urban and rural councils. In addition, it also includes more directly community-focused organisations such as hospitals (of all sizes and kinds), the fire service and the police, etc. Clearly, this represents a wide range of very diverse types of organisation whose needs are likely to vary greatly when it comes to the flow of money in an out. Of course, not all of these organisations send out a bill or invoice or even provide a receipt. However, they all buy products and services of one kind or another and will often have some kind of internal charging method for services rendered (however infrequent this may be). This means that the vast majority of public sector organisations receive or issue bills (especially where they deal with consumers directly) and the volume can be very high. This is true of large council organisations, medical clinics and tax departments for instance and in some single organisations can run into millions of bills each year. For example, both the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre (DVLC) in the UK issue over 20 million bills a year to consumers alone. We will therefore assume that for the purposes of this article that we are referring to the whole public sector, which includes Government to Government (G2G), Government to Business (G2B) and Government to Consumer (G2C) billing.
Based on the volumes of invoices generated (estimated to be over 2 billion bills/ invoices a year across the entire UK public sector), the automation of billing and payment collection processes (to create greater efficiency) should be a primary concern of most governmental entities. However, the evidence suggests that the generally slow take up of new approaches and online technology in particular has arisen from both many perceived barriers and a lack of perceived benefits versus commercial companies. Let’s therefore look at each of these factors in turn.
The Perceived Barriers
Although there are others, there are five main perceptions that public sector organisations often have about e-billing and payment. These are listed below:
The Perceived Benefits
A manager in the public sector can review the commonly perceived benefits of e-billing as easily as a private sector manager can do so. However, he or she may feel that these benefits may not apply as much or even at all in some cases. In the chart below, we have listed six of the major perceived benefits of modern internet based e-billing and payment portals (again such as Payswyft for example) and commented on the likely applicability of each to both private and public sector organisations.
In addition to the above benefits in each of these six categories, online presentment and payment portals provide for many other valuable features. This includes, easy upload of accounting data files (by many means), file transfer compatibly, to and from all major accounting systems, convenient and useful transactional analytics and cheaper bill-storage and retrieval. In fact, public sector organisations are often required to be able to store and retrieve many years of bills and transactional records, which can now all be done in the third party online bill presentment and payment portal. This means that bills can be easily found, referred to, appended with notes or even resent and a very low cost to the organisation in question.
Every one of the above ultimately can potentially create a much more user-friendly process to send a bill and get it paid for both the organisation and its payees (whether these are other public sector organisations, businesses or consumers). Furthermore, many of the legitimate barriers to entry of the past seemed to have disappeared and the benefits of making the change are now clearer. For this reason, e-billing should now be a key strategy for every public sector organisation.
This article was written by Dr Jon Warner of Payswyft (at www.PaySwyft.com). Jon has extensive senior executive experience and has led organizations in a variety of industries through significant transitions to achieve bottom-line results. He is an expert in developing and implementing strategies in operations, marketing, sales, and corporate turnarounds. Jon is currently CEO of PaySwyft in the UK (an innovative on-line billing and payment business) and Chairman of WCOD (a management consulting and publishing business). He can be reached at jon.warner@payswyft.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)