A meeting is not what you do. It is the forum in which you do something. You discuss problems in order to develop a plan to resolve them. You provide updates on progress of a project in order to gain approval to move to the next stage. You may sell your product or buy a product. These are the things you do in a meeting. If you have a busy day coming up, preparing an important presentation and responding to lots of emails, you wouldn’t say “I’ve got to use the computer a lot today” – you just wouldn’t. So why do people say “I have lots of meetings today”?
So I’ve banned the word meeting. I want to remain focused on the purpose of any meeting rather than the meeting itself and I want my staff and colleagues to do likewise. And next, I’m going to ban the word “data”.
The business case for e-invoicing is normally measured from the perspective of the accounts payable process in the buying organization. Indeed, it is often said that most if not all of the benefits are stacked in the buyers favor - it’s the buyers that get to automate and eliminate process whereas for the supplier they only seem to incur costs.
It’s time suppliers woke up. Take a simplistic view and you can barely make a business case for e-invoicing but take a closer look and the benefits can be astonishing.
In my recent article, “e-wheels on my Wagon” I explained why I think PEPPOL is a decade behind the curve. Actually, I want to go further than that and explain why PEPPOL fails to address one of its primary targets – stimulating cross-border trade, particularly by and for SMEs. e-wheels on the wrong wagon in fact.
At the recent PEPPOL conference in Rome I tweeted, in a fit of mischief and ennui, that the discussion seemed to me to be at least 10 years behind the curve. All it needed was a blinding flash of light and Michael J Fox climbing out of a DeLorean to prove that we really were going back to the future.
The business community, including the analysts and commentators, have for a long time been obsessed with two things about e-procurement solution vendors, both of which are irrelevant. The first is functionality – the second is share price.
No wonder e-procurement doesn't work.
There's a Venn diagram on which I sit near Jason Busch. Many of our views, some of our backgrounds and parts of experience overlap. But it's not an exact match and the difference is illustrated by Jason’s piece commenting on my view that many, if not most e-procurement implementations are “half assed”.