Why Do Checks Still Dominate B2B Payments in NA? Cont'd

Hi Matthew, I like how you position this. I have always run up against the ROI issue in the final stages of business process improvement, and payments being the last things that happen in most cases become just one of the rough edges that have to be dealt with in "Phase 2".

The problem I see is that the cost has just been shifted, from internal IT to paying a third-party middleman and the banks' excessive charges for electronic payments (non-check payments still appear under the 'luxury' banner, like making a wire is something only the rich people do in black and white movies, or Bond villains do to private Swiss accounts before they blow up the world!).

A paper check is still cheaper, even with your internal labor costs to write, track and reconcile it. A full ROI just doesn't seem to add up. And I really wish it did.

I wrote a little more about my personal experiences with business cases getting in the way of polishing end to end business processes, comparing my experiences in US and the UK. If it doesn't get blocked, the link is here: http://blog.consected.com/2011/03/why-do-checkscheques-still-dominate-b2b.html

Thanks,

Phil

The harsh reality for a corporate, as Phil A points out, is this: checks are free, ePayments are often not. So, justifying a migration solely on the basis of issues around the process end-point - i.e. instrument - will likely remain challenging. At the same time, the end-to-end order-to-cash and procure-to-pay processes stand to derive several collateral benefits from a migration to ePayments. Besides, as someone from Intuit recently said during the launch of its Intuit Payment Network, it might be more effective to focus the solution on the guy who gets paid (i.e. supplier) since s/he's likely to be far more enthusiastic about it than the guy who pays (i.e. buyer)! 

Now that is some inspired thinking. If I could get paid sooner, and without a trip to the bank then I would probably sign up for that solution!