e-invoicing

There’s a distinct change in tone in the latest press release from Tradeshift. It’s happy. I’m not saying that press releases in the past were miserable, it’s just that I would have used other words to describe their character - frenetic or excited perhaps. And the Tradeshift team has good reason to be happy. The headline announces the $75 million investment that they’ve just secured but what is really good news for the Tradeshifters, their customers and investors is the foothold they just gained in the third largest economy in the world.

There’s a guy that wants to know how to learn how to negotiate. His friend, a professional buyer, explains to him that all he needs to do is to offer half of what he’s asked for when buying anything. Armed with this new skill, he goes off to buy himself a suit. “That will be $200 sir” says the tailor. Our negotiator responds with an offer of $100. “You drive a hard bargain” the tailor replies “but as I like you, you can take the suit for $100” Our negotiator fixes the tailor with a stare. “$50” he snaps. Realizing what's going on and keen to serve other customers, the exasperated tailor gives the suit away. “Take it. It’s free. Just get out of here” Negotiator: “I’ll have two”

Today we're pleased to welcome a post from Richard Manson from CloudTrade.

E-invoicing means different things to different people.  For some it can be an enabler for supply chain finance and initiatives such as dynamic discounting. For others it provides visibility of spend and support for sourcing and rationalisation opportunities.

Complementary services and related marketing jargon have evolved hand in hand over the years but they mask the real reason why most organisations want to roll out e-invoicing:  Organisations have paper - loads of it. Most companies simply want to remove as much of it as possible from their processes to reduce operating costs and increase control and visibility. So if the goal for most is to simply remove paper – and it’s an accepted fact that e-invoicing benefits all – why aren’t more people doing it?

On Monday morning I had what I thought was a slight cold. Sniffing, I headed to London. By late morning, it was a proper cold and by the time I arrived in Westminster for the second sitting of Stephen McPartland’s parliamentary inquiry into e-invoicing, I’d developed full blown man-flu. This was a session characterised by contrasts. Forthright opinions together with cautiously expressed views. Good news mixed with disappointing revelations. But overall a great second session.

When you read the news this week that the European Union has agreed a mandate for e-invoicing you could be forgiven for thinking that the policy makers in Europe have come to their senses. They estimate that a saving of €2.3 billion a year could be delivered by streamlining the back office processes in public sector by using a common electronic standard for transmitting invoice data. This all sounds very worthy - very 21st century, but as someone with a professional interest in this (as well as a personal stake in it as a European taxpayer), I’m less than impressed. Here’s why.

"As new Turkish e-Invoicing regulations come into force in January 2014, two leading service providers have partnered to bring world-class electronic invoicing to Turkey." So says the press release that many of you will have read over the past few days about OB10 and Digital Planet. But how big a deal is this? What is the significance of the Turkish regulation change? If you look into it, it seems only to effect a few corporations - those that trade in alcohol, tabacco and gasoline. Will it have a major impact or is this really just the Turkish Government piloting a concept or seeking to control industries within which tax evasion is common? As an outsider, it's easy to jump to these conclusions so rather than relying on my limited knowledge and intuition on this subject, I spoke to an insider, Adnan Vural, CEO of Digital Planet, who was able to demystify things for me. The new regime in Turkey I learned, is no pilot exercise.

The great American commentator and satirist Jim Boren (1925 – 2010) long ago coined the term ‘Dynamic Inactivity’ to describe a form of bureaucratic behaviour which we all recognise. Dynamic Inactivity is defined as the devitalisation of ideas by the promulgation of ‘viable concepts’ and ‘action plans’ which serve to mask the underlying formulation of ‘inaction concepts’. For Boren, Dynamic Inactivity means doing nothing, but doing it with consummate bureaucratic style. Perhaps the greatest disappointment in public sector eCommerce in the last decade and a half has been dynamic inactivity. Lots has happened: millions of Euros have been spent on policy development, technical studies, conferences and analysis, economic analysis, standards setting, monitoring, recommending and blah, blah, blah. In reality, f*** all has actually happened of any significance.