Neil - great post - I see the analogy of the car and seatbelt could be taken further. In the early days of cars, seatbelts were around but not always used - same as antivirus and firewalls today.
Over time we had anxious parents constantly telling us to buckle up - who will be the parents for the internet? Seeing as most of the problems are with adults already.
The difference between cars and the net is that car crashes are visible and understandable. Most victims of malware today don't have the slightest clue that they are infected or how to detect the problem.
14 Sep 2010 15:05 Read comment
Garry - one thing that the banks have as an advantage is that they are the natural payment partner.
To close the eBilling or e-invoicing loop (different processes as explained here) it is natural to make the payment an integral part of the solution.
For B2C customers this is simple - email the invoice with the payment form embedded - we do this in HTML and secure PDF. Customers typically pay within 48 hours producing all the benefits that you describe.
But for B2B transactions this is much harder as the approval processes are segregated and I don't think the banks will want to get into the workflow that is involved with that.
Therefore I agree that banks are too late to this party and should look to facilitate and augment the existing ecosystems that are currently working.
Michael Wright - Striata.com
03 Jun 2010 13:53 Read comment
Brett - large banks are victims of their own success - in order to enjoy the economies of scale that drive both revenues and profits they need to be big - but this size comes at the expense of innovation.
Large banks battle to innovate because the knock-on effect of any change is enormous.
We supply an eStatement product to the banking market - and can show ROI in 90 days - an innovative product that drives customers to sign-up for online banking. A large UK bank worked out that to add the indicator to their banking screen to flag a customer for email statements would take 6 hours of programming and 500 hours of testing. External costs were 10% of total project costs.
Furthermore the list of priorities in the bank starts with projects and functionality that was conceived 3-5 year ago and has been waiting for development resources - making it impossible to innovate, be nimble and up to date.
When banks do show a bit of flair and adopt a new technology or interface, they are crucified for not testing enough, jumping the gun and following a fad.
It's a no-win situation - so innovative people move to start-ups that can provide an outlet for their talents.
In truth, I'm not even sure the public want their bank to be innovative.
02 Jun 2010 10:56 Read comment
@Tonnis – while we shouldn’t force one model as you say, the distinction between the terminology will allow us to start to define the different models with more accuracy.
E-invoicing will generally not have a B2C component as consumers are unlikely to have the automated processes that will drive the efficiencies of an e-invoicing system.
eBilling may have B2B components as pointed out – but if these are SME type businesses then they can probably be treated as B2C and will benefit from the electronic delivery rather than the automation.
My argument is that when companies are approaching electronic billing, they will generally only be interested in either automation or electronic document delivery – both will provide cost savings but the projects, collaboration and solutions are vastly different.
29 May 2010 17:29 Read comment
Jonathan - There are many initiatives underway in an attempt to agree standards for e-invoicing across the EU. But each of them are battling with different regulatory issues and local reuqirements.
In the UK, I have been part of a GS1 committee working with utilities and large customers to define a standard for e-invoicing of utility bills. These are aimed at a B2B environment (particularly for multi-site customers).
It's not been easy, even with all the right people around the table committed to an open industry standard that saves costs and provides the right information for managing utility spend.
E-invoicing will only add complexity to SEPA as you rightly point out.
28 May 2010 11:27 Read comment
@Rik - what you describe with a generic XML invoice format would be the nirvana of eBilling.
Banks would be a good place for the rendering and the presentation as they would wish to facilitate the payments. This is a growing feature of Internet Banking in the US.
The issue is that billers won't ever relinquish their control of the final format of the bill - they use the bill for more than just conveying a total owed, there is marketing customer service and feedback elements built in. Billing and payment are still separate (see point 5 on this newsletter).
Therefore the invoice or bill, as we know it, is here to stay for B2C customers.
For B2B customers - who don't care about the additional messaging and just want the financial information - the XML would be perfect -and this is what e-invoicing is trying to bring about.
Hence I believe that the goals and objectives are different for ebilling and e-invoicing and that they will require different solutions - even for those businesses that have with SME customers and may have to do both.
28 May 2010 11:12 Read comment
Interesting that this is called a "PIN code" - I've always seen this this type of process referred to as a "One Time Password" or OTP.
This is used by many banks for online banking verification - striving to meet 2 factor requirements (something you know = username and password as well as something you have = your mobile).
It raises the security requirements for mobiles - setting a sim access code as well as a screen saver code will now become a key feature for mobile devices.
28 May 2010 10:50 Read comment
@Rik - You are right that in most cases the invoice and bill contain the same information - however the processes that accompany each are different in the "e" world.
E-invoicing is an automated process - not typically in human readable or display format -in fact the objective of an end to end e-invoicing process is that there is no human intervention. Although the data may be decipherable by someone that understands XML - there is actual print version that needs to be produced. Therefore e-invoicing shouldn't be discussed in terms of B2C processes as consumers will not be automating their payments for many years (although I can see this in the distant future).
eBilling is totally focused on providing a human readable format - just electronic rather than paper based and hence this is not trying to automate the exchange the information in the document but only trying to replace the costly paper and print process.
So it is the mapping that is different - but also the intention of the process and the format of the document vs the data and the use of the document or data once received.
My point is that companies shouldn't be thinking that these are the same thing and can be achieved by a single solution. It should be fairly simple to start - are you changing the delivery method of the document or automating the delivery, receipt and input of the information within the document ?
regards
Michael - Striata.com
21 May 2010 11:52 Read comment
Micah - it looks like paper will continue to be the scourge of business processes for many years to come - but there is hope for the paperless society !
One of the questions that Striata gets asked as we transition our banking clients from paper statements to secure document delivery (eStatements delivered by email) is "how will customers now prove their identity?".
We have always held out that using a printed statement from another bank or utility to identify your new customer is basing your security on top of someone else's and will result in a security house of cards.
In addition, the modern printers are so good now that producing your own statement from scratch and printing it on a colour printer will fool most front line staff. Do the people processing the documents know what to look for in the paper and printing to prove it is an original copy ? Not likely!
Online verification is much more accurate and probably quicker to process - and we can dismiss the argument that customers have to have a paper statement to verify their identity.
We're all for eliminating the paper, printing and postage - a saving of up to 80% for most companies that adopt paperless billing.
18 May 2010 17:11 Read comment
Striata has been supporting Iconix for visual email authentication for a while now. However it's the classic challenge of consumer technology adoption. Our new customers always ask - "who else is using it".
It needed a big brand to get behind it to make consumers aware of the solution.
I hope with Paypal (the most phished brand in Feb 2010 according Avira) can start to really encourage the use of this type of visual technology.
10 Mar 2010 12:54 Read comment
Welcome to Finextra. We use cookies to help us to deliver our services. You may change your preferences at our Cookie Centre.
Please read our Privacy Policy.