托比編者按：眾所周知，國(guó)際B2B業(yè)務(wù)的發(fā)展比中國(guó)早了約20年，與B2C的占比約為8:2，80%的美國(guó)上市公司都是B2B；而在國(guó)內(nèi)，B2B的投資只占全部投資的5%，美國(guó)則達(dá)到40%。這表明國(guó)內(nèi)B2B未來(lái)有著巨大的發(fā)展空間。
為幫助國(guó)內(nèi)從業(yè)人員了解國(guó)際B2B行業(yè)發(fā)展?fàn)顩r，托比網(wǎng)從即日起開設(shè)“國(guó)際B2B”欄目，編繹國(guó)外重要文章，以最新觀點(diǎn)、最新案例、重要消息為主，原則上每日一篇，供行業(yè)人參考與借鑒。
托比網(wǎng)致力于成為國(guó)內(nèi)最專注、最專業(yè)、最權(quán)威的重度垂直媒體，讓行業(yè)永遠(yuǎn)有方向，伴隨B2B企業(yè)共成長(zhǎng)。
《安全、靈活、敏捷——B2B支付開發(fā)有待創(chuàng)新》作者是比爾?諾斯。需求創(chuàng)造合作。正如標(biāo)題和文中所說(shuō)，B2B支付的需求很簡(jiǎn)單：安全、靈活、敏捷?？此坪?jiǎn)單，國(guó)外市場(chǎng)反饋卻依然再反饋這個(gè)問(wèn)題，中國(guó)呢？
托比編譯必為B2B前沿精品，歡迎轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)載明“托比網(wǎng)編譯”違者必糾。
我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)與世界各地的跨國(guó)公司工作的公司財(cái)務(wù)主管經(jīng)常就B2B支付問(wèn)題展開對(duì)話，簡(jiǎn)單和靈活這兩項(xiàng)是我們一直強(qiáng)調(diào)的因素。這既是B2B支付目前面臨的問(wèn)題，又是我們業(yè)務(wù)開展的目標(biāo)。
與新聞工作類似，每一筆付款背后都存在一個(gè)固定結(jié)構(gòu)：收款人、幣種、付款時(shí)間與付款金額。這些要素非常簡(jiǎn)單，然而在操作過(guò)程中卻顯得無(wú)比復(fù)雜。
例如，我們需要知道銀行遵循的不同規(guī)則，比如首選渠道、支付類型，甚至要匹配銀行對(duì)于安全和加密的要求。支付遠(yuǎn)不像我們想象的簡(jiǎn)單，而上面的例子僅代表一筆支付，類似的支付在全球各地正在以數(shù)十萬(wàn)筆的規(guī)模發(fā)生著。
要滿足上述要求，意味著不合規(guī)的付款以及拒絕付款這樣的情況需要專業(yè)人員應(yīng)對(duì)。這對(duì)于企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)是一種資源浪費(fèi)，并成為企業(yè)財(cái)務(wù)人員的一大痛點(diǎn)。
一般來(lái)說(shuō)，銀行為建立長(zhǎng)期信用關(guān)系的企業(yè)提供一部分支付服務(wù)。2008年的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)改變了這一點(diǎn)，考慮到回避交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，公司們開始與不同的銀行建立關(guān)系。在這個(gè)背景下，銀行必須提供有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的產(chǎn)品以爭(zhēng)取企業(yè)的業(yè)務(wù)合作。
這是我們多次和企業(yè)財(cái)務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)人們聊到的另一個(gè)痛點(diǎn)。當(dāng)他們傾向采用某種特定模式處理付款，但銀行的技術(shù)要求往往形成障礙。
這是另一個(gè)主題，在我與財(cái)務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)人們的對(duì)話中提出了好幾次。 他們都說(shuō)，雖然他們希望使用某家銀行進(jìn)行支付處理，但該銀行的技術(shù)限制阻止他們這樣做。
當(dāng)企業(yè)想使用ISO20022協(xié)議（備注：2004年制定并發(fā)布的國(guó)際金融報(bào)文格式）處理所有的付款時(shí)，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)很多銀行僅僅支持基于SWIFT協(xié)議的付款。例如，一些財(cái)務(wù)主管告訴我們，他們熱衷于對(duì)所有支付類型使用ISO 20022格式，以便利用增加的數(shù)據(jù)字段并協(xié)調(diào)整個(gè)企業(yè)的流程。 但不是所有的信用銀行都接受這種信息格式，許多只支持SWIFT格式的國(guó)際支付。
上面的例子表明，銀行應(yīng)迎合企業(yè)的需求，向標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化邁進(jìn)并提供彈性化的解決方案。反過(guò)來(lái)銀行卻認(rèn)為這樣的創(chuàng)新將耗時(shí)數(shù)年，投資巨大。通過(guò)與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融公司合作，銀行可以一方面遵循自己的技術(shù)原則，一方面保證滿足企業(yè)支付需求。這樣銀行將在滿足簡(jiǎn)單靈活兩大因素的同時(shí)完成敏捷開發(fā)。
多年來(lái)銀行主渴望與銀行合作打通支付，但銀行卻不聞不問(wèn)。如果這一情況發(fā)展下去，這些銀行將失去競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。
文章來(lái)源：Finextra Research
作者簡(jiǎn)介作者簡(jiǎn)介：比爾?諾斯 美國(guó)派力肯（Pelican公司）國(guó)際銷售部經(jīng)理。該公司是世界上最著名的安全防護(hù)箱和專業(yè)照明產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)商，已在全國(guó)55個(gè)國(guó)家擁有超過(guò)10億筆交易，5萬(wàn)億美金的訂單額。該公司的重要舉措之一是通過(guò)將人工智能應(yīng)用于支付生命周期（包括合規(guī)性操作）來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)智能支付管理。
A brave new world: the need for innovation in B2B paymentsBill North - Pelican
Simplicity and flexibility
In the many conversations our teams have with corporate treasurers working in multinational organisations around the world, these are the two words we find constantly repeated.
This is hardly a surprise. It does, however, beg the question as to why this is still such an issue in the world of B2B payments and what needs to be done to simplify it.
These key points are pretty straight forward, and consistent with every payment. Where it gets complicated is in the execution.
For instance, we need to know which banks require the details and how to get this information across – such as the preferred channel and format for this type of payment. We also need to consider what should be filed to the bank and comply with the required types of security and encryption.
As we can see, the payments process is not quite as simple as first thought. Let’s also remember that the above example represents only one payment – this is a process that is repeated billions of times a day across all regions of the world.
Broken relationship
Historically, banks which had an ongoing credit relationship with a specific corporate got a share of the payments business.
But since the crash of 2008, coupled with counterparty credit risk avoidance activities, companies have now diversified their banking relationships. In this new context, banks must lead product offerings along with establishing competitive pricing in order to stay in the game.
This is another subject that has been brought up several times in conversations I’ve had with treasurers. They all said that while they have a desire to use a certain bank for payments processing, the technical limitations of that bank prevented them from doing so.
For example, some treasurers were telling us that they were keen on using the ISO 20022 format for all payment types, in order to leverage added data fields and harmonise processes across the enterprise. But not all credit banks accept this message format, with many only supporting international payments in SWIFT formats.
Driving innovation
This shows that banks need to listen to treasurers, and start the drive towards standardisation. It also shows that there is a need for banks to innovate in this area, and develop a flexible solution of their own.
This could send banks into a panic. But the drive for innovation doesn’t have to require years of construction that sees development costs run into millions or even billions.
By partnering with a fintech firm, banks can not only have a ready-made system that works with their own technology, but also ensure this is fully compliant while fulfilling corporate payment needs.
There are many opportunities out there to create a simple, flexible solution – but time is of the essence.
Corporate treasurers are screaming out to work with banks on their payments, but if they continue to shut their eyes and ears to the needs of their customers, they will find themselves lagging behind competitors.
