Maventa.com has today outranked Enfo Oy and OP-Pohjola Group with its existing Finnish customer base of 2377 legal entities and takes the third position within the Finnish operators. With a user-base across Europe in 13 different countries, the network attains over 12 new Finnish legal entities daily. Source: http://verkkolasku.tieke.fi
Instead of dealing with cumbersome implementation procedures or complex format conversions, Maventa takes care of the heavy-lifting on behalf of the customer. Key differentiators from the Finnish Banks include among others: Plug&Play in 10 minutes, Format validations and conversions, Company's own design on their invoices, inclusion of any type of attachments, trade acknowledgements, long-time storage and digital signatures. The banking network is not capable of delivering anything else than the finnish niche-standard Finvoice, which has several shortcomings from a digital trading perspective. 99.998% of all invoices were accurately delivered and processed by the recipients in 2009 - which gives an insight on the level of data-correctness we are able to produce. Our current platform is capable of 18,000 independent transactions / second.
Maventa's aim is to simplify the e-invoicing landscape in to a transparent cloud service, which can be utilized on any software or service. Our service is designed to scale from one-man consulting companies to multinational conglomerates and has been audited by 3 independent IT-security consulting firms.
We are completely format, language and location agnostic which makes us usable in any environment (SAP, Oracle, IFS, Adage, MS Dynamics, QuickBooks, Sage.. just to name few). The financial system is directly connected to the Maventa cloud, extending its current capabilities to electronic invoicing. Purchase invoices are automatically synchronized from the Maventa account directly to the financial system without any additional functionalities needed. The conventionally static financial software becomes a networked tool with real-time transparency to the corporate financial processes. Acknowledgements between senders and the receivers allow the parties to be certain of the delivery. The archaic paper invoicing process, which can last up to months, can be narrowed down to minutes with our technology.
Maventa determines the most cost-efficient route for the invoice, with the least favorable option as a ground-mail paper invoice. All Maventa internal transactions are completely free of charge. No recurring or administrative fees apply to holding or setting-up an account. Sending electronic invoices to 3rd party operators cost from 0.05 euros to 0.25 euros per transaction. Receiving electronic invoices from any 3rd party operator is free of charge.
"We are streamlining the user experience and diminishing costs for SMEs and providing the data accuracy longed by the large enterprises - and we're just getting started."
Excellent work! Just what I was looking for. The banking interfaces are "somewhat" outdated and their new Web Services SOAP interface just makes things even worse, hope they won't release it as such. This is by far the most straightforward solution with an understandable pricing model. The only thing we actually need is a simple gateway to connect our clients to. Thank you!
Just for information - banks had signed up 129 000 enterprises for e-invoicing by end of 2009 - now probably 140 000 - would be good if Mr Forsman could use this information.
Of course banks will improve their services on a continuos basis - competition will drive it.
This is a biased approach. Could you define more closely on the 129 000 enterprises in which degree they use the services? Ticking a box when opening a bank account (which nearly every company has) is not linked to usage of services. How many of these claimed 129 000 enterprises has ever sent one single e-invoice?
As we also know, 5.7M invoices were delivered 2008 (2009 figures still MIA) in the banking network. That again put in to perspective with the total population of Finland (5.6M in 2008) tells the actual traction ,since banks cater to B2B and B2C. There's actually no real evidence in the favor for these 129 000 numbers. I call this a hoax with a capital h, until there's real evidence to back Mr. Harald's case.
I managed to post the above without my name - against my principles. For Mr Forsman:
1. The statistics is saying that banks had signed up 129 000 enterprises by year end - by now perhaps 140 000
2. I do not know how many of these have used the service - but most likely most - if not all - will eventually
3. I would no use the word hoax if I were you
Bo Harald
Would concur to you point number 2; "Will eventually, at some point, in the future." If these statistics are from anywhere near reliant sources, why aren't they subscribed to Tiekes registry? These 129K enterprises are lacking capabilities to be identified in the network as either senders or recipients. As far as I recall, there are only production-capable enterprises listed in Tieke - thus diluting your statement. It's of no use having a enterprise connected on meaningless sheet of paper, if the service usage is a s low as Piia-Noora Kauppi from the Finnish Federation of Financial Services presented on spring 2009.
For the readers of RTE, let me me elaborate: There was only 5.7M invoices delivered within the banking network in 2008. As the banks cater to a stated 129 -140K enterprises, each of us can do the math on service uptake. The grimmer fact is that these players cater to both B2B and B2C (we had a population of 5.6M in 2008). Bo Harald later stated on his blog (http://boharald.blogspot.com) that the banking network grows in transactions 10-20% month-on-month. That agan would put us in a ballpark of 16M-42M transactions for 2009, if these statements hold anything else than big words. Looking forward to see the actual figures released this spring Apr / May, to see, if Bo Harald indeed has access to inside information - or is he hoping and guessing his way through?
Would presume that as an renowed expert, in some circles, he would care to make sure that statements given are at least based on facts. That's all.
Mr Forsman is drawing conclusions based on monthly observations from some time ago - when volumes were lower than today. From that he is reading that I am claiming that the same %growth will continue when volumes grow. I have said nothing of the sort (they may be lower or higher) and find this "discussion" quite useless.
