托比編者按：眾所周知，國際B2B業(yè)務(wù)的發(fā)展比中國早了約20年，與B2C的占比約為8:2，80%的美國上市公司都是B2B；而在國內(nèi)，B2B的投資只占全部投資的5%，美國則達到40%。這表明國內(nèi)B2B未來有著巨大的發(fā)展空間。
為幫助國內(nèi)從業(yè)人員了解國際B2B行業(yè)發(fā)展狀況，托比網(wǎng)從即日起開設(shè)“國際B2B”欄目，編繹國外重要文章，以最新觀點、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)永遠有方向，伴隨B2B企業(yè)共成長。
《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。正如標題和文中所說，B2B支付的需求很簡單：安全、靈活、敏捷。看似簡單，國外市場反饋卻依然再反饋這個問題，中國呢？
托比編譯必為B2B前沿精品，歡迎轉(zhuǎn)載，請載明“托比網(wǎng)編譯”違者必糾。
我們的團隊與世界各地的跨國公司工作的公司財務(wù)主管經(jīng)常就B2B支付問題展開對話，簡單和靈活這兩項是我們一直強調(diào)的因素。這既是B2B支付目前面臨的問題，又是我們業(yè)務(wù)開展的目標。
與新聞工作類似，每一筆付款背后都存在一個固定結(jié)構(gòu)：收款人、幣種、付款時間與付款金額。這些要素非常簡單，然而在操作過程中卻顯得無比復(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，甚至要匹配銀行對于安全和加密的要求。支付遠不像我們想象的簡單，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。這對于企業(yè)來說是一種資源浪費，并成為企業(yè)財務(wù)人員的一大痛點。
一般來說，銀行為建立長期信用關(guān)系的企業(yè)提供一部分支付服務(wù)。2008年的經(jīng)濟危機改變了這一點，考慮到回避交易風(fēng)險，公司們開始與不同的銀行建立關(guān)系。在這個背景下，銀行必須提供有競爭力的產(chǎn)品以爭取企業(yè)的業(yè)務(wù)合作。
這是我們多次和企業(yè)財務(wù)負責(zé)人們聊到的另一個痛點。當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。
這是另一個主題，在我與財務(wù)負責(zé)人們的對話中提出了好幾次。 他們都說，雖然他們希望使用某家銀行進行支付處理，但該銀行的技術(shù)限制阻止他們這樣做。
當企業(yè)想使用ISO20022協(xié)議（備注：2004年制定并發(fā)布的國際金融報文格式）處理所有的付款時，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)很多銀行僅僅支持基于SWIFT協(xié)議的付款。例如，一些財務(wù)主管告訴我們，他們熱衷于對所有支付類型使用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格式的國際支付。
上面的例子表明，銀行應(yīng)迎合企業(yè)的需求，向標準化邁進并提供彈性化的解決方案。反過來銀行卻認為這樣的創(chuàng)新將耗時數(shù)年，投資巨大。通過與互聯(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單靈活兩大因素的同時完成敏捷開發(fā)。
多年來銀行主渴望與銀行合作打通支付，但銀行卻不聞不問。如果這一情況發(fā)展下去，這些銀行將失去競爭力。
文章來源：Finextra Research
作者簡介作者簡介：比爾?諾斯 美國派力肯（Pelican公司）國際銷售部經(jīng)理。該公司是世界上最著名的安全防護箱和專業(yè)照明產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)商，已在全國55個國家擁有超過10億筆交易，5萬億美金的訂單額。該公司的重要舉措之一是通過將人工智能應(yīng)用于支付生命周期（包括合規(guī)性操作）來實現(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.
