CEN eInvoice Phase 2 Intermediary Report

1
CEN WORKSHOP eInvoicing Phase 2
Task Group 4 Intermediary Report
Friso de Jong, Chairman Task Group 4
Adrian Mueller,Expert Task Group 4
eInvoicing Public Meeting
Brussels, 29 September 2008

2
Emerging and new technologies
-business- processes and practices

3
Agenda
- Main objectives
- Context
- Framework
- Deliverables
- Questions and Answers

4
Task Group 4: The people
- Expert: Adrian Mueller (Dr. Otto Mueller Consulting)
- Chair: Friso de Jong (Platform ELFA)
- Members: In order of appearance:
Andrea Caccia (Innovery), Anders Grangard (GS 1
International), Francis Berthomieu (Orange FT
Group), Otto Mueller (Dr. Otto Mueller Consulting),
Wolfgang Eckert (Deutsche Post), Klaus Foerderer
(GS1 Germany), Peter Potgieser (ABN Amro),
Erwann Revolt (Orange FT Group)

2005 CEN – all rights reserved
Intermediary Report 1-10-2008
The main objectives

Task Group 4: The main objectives
Main objectives are based on the CEN/ISSS Phase II business case:
(source:http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/activity/einvoicing_2.asp)
 Implementation of compliant electronic invoice systems in using
emerging technologies and business processes; this will include
issues such as:
- assessment of business processes, i.e. b-2-b trading platforms.
 Identification of new and emerging technologies with potential
impact on electronic invoices and related business processes

The main objectives put in context

Task Group 4: Main objectives in context
1. The CEN/ISSS eInvoice Phase II business case:
‘The objective (..) is to help to fill gaps in standardization [red:
interoperability] for the use of electronic invoice processes, to
identify the various practices in member states, to integrate the
emerging technical and practical solutions into effective best
practices, and to define and disseminate these best practices for
e-invoices in close coordination and cooperation with private
industry, solution providers and public administration.’

Task Group 4: Main objectives put in context
2. Commission decision setting up a Expert Group on eInvoicing:
(source:ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/einvoicing/index_en.htm)
‘Its tasks should be to identify business requirements(4)
and
responsibilities for the execution of specific work, as well as to
steer the creation — by the end of 2009 — of a European e-
Invoicing Framework to establish a common conceptual structure
to support the provision of e-Invoicing services in an open and
interoperable manner across Europe.’
‘(4) eInvoicing business requirements represent the characteristics that eInvoice services should
match in order to satisfy the stakeholders‘ business needs and goals, enabling the processes of
the entire financial and supply chains. They are expressed in terms of high level process flows,
eInvoice information and standard message structure.’

3. Objectives in the Europe i2010 statement:
’In summary, to launch the i2010 agenda on raising investment in
research and innovation the Commission will:[..]
Define e-business policies aiming to remove technological,
organisational and legal barriers to ICT adoption with a focus on
SME's.[..]
The Commission will support these efforts using a limited set of high
profile demonstrators to test technical, legal and organisational
solutions.’

Impact of this on the on the main objectives of Task Group 4:
 Both organisational and technical aspects
 Link with legal aspects on eInvoicing: fiscal and trade law compliance
 Creating results with spill over effect towards SEPA, EEIF, i2010
 Definitely exploit synergy with other CEN/ISSS eInvoice Phase II task
groups and deliverables: Draft Good Practice Guidelines
 But also: careful not to enter into the domains of these task groups

Q: How is Task Group 4 to meet its
main objectives?

A: By focussing on several deliverables
 Recommendations to amend Phase I eInvoicing CWA‘s (15582, 15576,
...)
 Definitions set on e-Invoicing based on: purpose, context and parameters
 Implementation guideline for ‘compliant electronic invoice systems using
new and emerging technologies, -business- processes and practices’
 Possibly: document containing recommendations (perhaps for the EC
Expert Group on e-invoicing) for update of the VAT directive or national
laws?

The main objectives, context
and focus on deliverables,
demand for the use of a
‘framework’ in this Task Group

Framework step 1, 2, 3 and 4
PRACTICES AND
DEFINITIONS

Framework step 1: Definitions (1)
 No standardised/basic/neutral set of definitions is now available
 Such a set could on its own already create: semantic- interoperability:
understanding, and….acceptance.
 A set of definitions could be derived from legal, technical, organisational
and common practice inputs:
 EU Directives
 Phase I CWA’s
 UN/CEFACT
 UBL, NES, XAF, XBRL, IDABC (EC programme) eProcurement
 But also: common usages and best practices

 We discovered 15 sources of definitions on the field of e-invoicing
 250+ phrases and definitions
 These definitions differ based on their respective contexts:
legal, technical, organisational, common practice, commercial, supply chain, financial
supply chain, credit management, …
 And differ based on their respective interests:
technical, commercial, policy, supply chain, banking, …
 They also differ from usability based on objective parameters as:
technical neutrality, functional equivalence, usability,…

 How do we decide which ‘e-invoicing’ definition is ‘right’?
 Approach: - define objective parameters, context and interests
- score the definitions based upon parameters
- build consensus
 Q: Is it possible to come up with the [a] basic set of definitions fitted for all
purposes, interests and contexts?
A: That might be very difficult, also within the timeframe of this CEN Workshop.

Framework step 2: Models
 The abundance of several definitions, contexts, interests and purposes
opens up the possibility that eInvoicing might very well be performed using
–combinations of- models.
 Usage of eInvoicing could encompass models such as:
 Seller direct (example: web-portal at seller‘s side)
 Buyer direct (example: selfbilling)
 Consolidator (example: ‘mywebportal’)
 Four corner (example: sender>bank>bank>receiver)
 Invoice automation (example: scanning and workflow)
 Direct processing (example: sending signed invoices using Registered Mail)
 There is not a ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ model. It is better to say: a: ‘good’ and
‘better’ suited model (again based on: context, interest and parameters)

Framework step 3: Processes
 The models plus the definitions give a glance at all the existing –business-
processes on eInvoicing
 A set of processes could very well be added to those already identified in
the Phase I CWA’s. Such as:
 Disputing
 Downloading
 Print
 Presenting
 Factoring
 Etcetera..
 It is not in the domain of this Task Group to define these processes

Framework step 4: Technology
 Technology>enables processes>enables models>influences
definitions.
 Therefore several aspects of technology have an impact on the
processes.
 But what the actual impact is, depends on the nature of this
technology. Even better: on the layer where its manifests itself:
 Architecture (e.g. ebXML)
 Transmission (e.g. EDIINT AS2)
 Display (e.g. AJAX)
 ...
And this is how it looks in the model>>

Model or framework of Task Group 4

Q: How does this framework
relate to interoperability issues on
eInvoicing*?
(*in the Phase II business case, Commission Decision, i2010 declaration, EU Directive)

Q: Can Task Group 4 deliver a basic
set of definitions?

A: That is in fact one of the deliverables of
this Task Group, but….
 How do we decide which ‘e-invoicing’ definition is ‘right’? Or: ‘better’ or ‘best’?
 Approach: - define objective parameters, purpose and context
- score each definitions based on parameters, purpose and context
- build consensus
 N.B. This does not guarantee that a single basic set of definitions can be
codified. It does however provide for a set of best suitable definitions, given its
context and purpose.

Q: Is the set of definitions the only
deliverable of Task Group 4?

A: Certainly not. This Task Group has set
its mind to four deliverables
 Deliverable 1: Review of existing CWA’s when it comes to definitions and
inconsistencies (a legacy review)
 Deliverable 2: Set of definitions, from which subsets can be derived, based on
context, parameters and purposes
 Deliverable 3: Framework used in combination with definitions, to provide for
cross border/cultural communication support on e-invoicing
 Deliverable 4: Implementation guideline when it comes to market oriented
innovation and implementation of new and emerging
technologies and –business- processes

A: These four deliverables are expected to
result in three CWA’s
 Document 1: Review of existing CWA’s when it comes to definitions and
inconsistencies (a legacy review)
 CWA 1: Set of definitions, from which subsets can be derived, based on
context, parameters and purposes
 CWA 2: Framework used in combination with definitions, to provide for
cross border/cultural communication support on e-invoicing
 CWA 3: Implementation guideline when it comes to market oriented
innovation and implementation of new and emerging
technologies and –business- processes

Q: What is the status of the expected
deliverables?

A: Task Group 4 is able to deliver well within
the assigned time frame (April 2009):
 Deliverable 1: Internal review is finished. Results are proposed for review
in the workshop.
 Deliverable 2: Definitions collected, contexts and purposes defined,
parameters needs to be defined. And then ‘score’ all definitions.
 Deliverable 3: Already in place, needs to be documented including using
multiple examples. In conjunction with definitions (deliverable 2)
 Deliverable 4: Information is already available, needs to be refined to fit to e-
invoicing. Using multiple examples. Also needs approval.

Q: How will the implementation
guideluine on new and emerging
technology and –business-
processes be created?

A: By taking into account:
 1: a basic IT principle, that states: reuse before buy, buy before make, make
before develop
 2: all the current developments on e-invoicing
 3: that new and emerging technologies and business- process on e-invoicing
nowadays have a lot in common with innovation processes
 4: that nowadays innovation is determined as the fifth wave of innovation:
open innovation [David Chessborough, 2003/2006]
 5: that innovation on and implementation of emerging and new technologies
and –business- processes should be market oriented, market driven.
 6: that quality is more important than an entirely new intellectual deliverable:
therefore not trying to reinvent the wheel again.

A: Therefore:
 We combined the notice of a acceleration across Europe in marketoriented
innovation and implementation of new and emerging technologies and –
business- processes on e-invoicing, with
 the notice that open innovation is increasingly used as innovation model,
because of several causes (will be explained), together with..
 …a model that is best suited to combine open innovation and e-invoicing
 And yes, this is an existing model. But it needs to be amended in order to fit the
purpose.

Q: Why are you using an existing
model?

A: Because:
 1: it fits current developments on e-invoicing
 2: it fits current developments on innovation: open innovation
 3: the model as such is being successfully used for numerous purposes all
over the world
 4: it is believed that the model can successfully be amended to fit the
purposes of this task group and its objective
 5: it can be of great help for: providers, users, et cetera.
 6: it enables to fit in all the deliverables of other task groups. (E.g.: the
Draft Good Practice Guidelines will be used twofold in this model!)
 7: And: it will be able to realise this deliverable within the assigned time frame
So, why not use an existing model and improve it for e-invoicing innovation?

Q: In what form will the deliverables be
presented?

A: In most cases, a paper based
deliverable:
 Deliverable 1: Paper based document
 Deliverable 2: Paper based document, including an Excel sheet

Q: What is the timeline for the Task
Group deliverables?

A: Our timeline is:
 Mid December 2008: concept CWA’s for deliverables 2, 3 and 4: 80 percent
complete.
 Mid February 2009: next intermediary report
 Mid February 2009: CWA’s open for review by workshop

Thanks for your attention

CEN eInvoice Phase 2 Intermediary Report

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (8)

Ähnlich wie CEN eInvoice Phase 2 Intermediary Report

Ähnlich wie CEN eInvoice Phase 2 Intermediary Report (20)

Mehr von Friso de Jong

Mehr von Friso de Jong (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

CEN eInvoice Phase 2 Intermediary Report