By Mark Brousseau
One positive result of the Check 21 legislation has been the adoption of remote deposit capture, which uses imaging technology to truncate checks at the point of presentment, in turn, streamlining processing, accelerating funds availability, and significantly reducing transportation costs. While remote deposit capture has been one of the most successful banking products of all time (enjoying a faster adoption than even online banking), you would never know it from the results of the 2010 Government Payment and Document Processing Survey conducted by TAWPI and IAPP.
Only 16.2 percent of all survey respondents currently use remote deposit capture. Among state revenue agencies, 17.4 percent of respondents currently use remote deposit capture. The adoption of remote deposit capture was strongest among the county government entities that responded to the survey, with half (50 percent) indicating that they use the technology. None of the (non-revenue) state agencies or city government entities that responded to the question use remote deposit capture.
Dave Bracken, vice president and senior account manager for Cash Management Solutions, Inc., says the low adoption rate of remote deposit capture among government users doesn’t mean that the need isn’t there for out-of-footprint collection solutions; instead it speaks to the complexity of integrating this type of technology without having to replace their entire legacy remittance processing system.
“A standalone remote deposit capture solution doesn’t provide updates to a government user’s internal tax systems,” Bracken explains. “And this ‘associating information’ is as important as the funds themselves. For remote deposit capture to be effective for a government user, it needs to be an extension of their centralized processing system. For most users, this presents an integration issue.”
Despite this challenge, Bracken predicts that more government users will adopt remote deposit capture – or “split source” solutions – into their operations as they replace their highly customized, “one-off” applications – which are difficult to upgrade – with more flexible and open platforms.
“The problem isn’t a lack of need. The problem is in effective implementation,” he concludes.
What do you think?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Government users have limited capital for payments and document automation
By Mark Brousseau
If state, county and municipal government users are going to make improvements in their payments and document processing operations in 2010, they’ll likely have to do it without the benefit of additional capital, according the results of a new survey from The Association for Work Process Improvement (TAWPI) and International Accounts Payable Professionals (IAPP).
The survey was conducted in partnership with the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) and sponsored by J&B Software, Inc. (a 3i Infotech company), Fairfax Imaging, ibml, WAUSAU Financial Systems, Inc., Cash Management Solutions, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company.
Complete results are available at: http://www.tawpi.org/research/government-processing-study.aspx.
Nearly half (46.4 percent) of all survey respondents indicated that their capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged for 2010. However, 17.9 percent of all respondents stated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, and 28.6 percent said their capital budgets are significantly lower. This means that the majority of respondents (46.5 percent) have smaller capital budgets in 2010 for payments automation projects. Only 3.6 percent of respondents to the electronic survey from TAWPI and IAPP reported that their 2010 capital budgets are slightly higher, while 3.6 percent said they are significantly higher.
The outlook is only slightly better for state revenue agencies, with 6.3 percent of respondents indicating that their 2010 budgets for payments initiatives are slightly higher, and 6.3 percent reporting that their budgets are significantly higher. About a third (37.5 percent) of state revenue agencies indicated that their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent said they are significantly lower and 18.8 percent reported they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies reported that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower, while 33.3 percent said that their budgets are unchanged.
Three-quarters (75 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 25 percent said they are significantly lower compared to 2009. Among the city government entities that responded to the question, 60 percent said their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 40 percent stated their capital budgets are significantly lower.
It is important to note that none of the (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities or city government entities that responded to the question said their budgets for payments automation projects are higher in 2010. Clearly, capital continues to be very tight for government operations.
The budget situation is almost identical for document automation projects. Almost half of all survey respondents (44.4 percent) indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 14.8 percent of all respondents stated that their capital budgets are slightly lower, and 29.6 percent indicated that their budgets are significantly lower. Only 7.4 percent of all respondents indicated that their capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher in 2010, while a fortunate 3.7 percent stated that they were significantly higher.
The budget situation is a bit better for state revenue agencies, with 12.5 percent indicating that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher compared to 2009, and 6.3 percent reporting that they are significantly higher. Still, 37.5 percent of state revenue agencies said their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent stated that their budgets are significantly lower compared to 2009, and 12.5 said they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies report that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, while 33.3 percent said they are unchanged.
One-third (33.3 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower compared to 2009, while 66.7 percent stated that they are unchanged. Similarly, 40 percent of city government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower, while 60 percent stated that they are unchanged.
The federal government respondent to the survey indicated that its 2010 capital budget for document automation projects is significantly lower compared to 2009. It is worth noting again that none of the responding (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities, city government entities, or federal government agencies stated that their 2010 budgets for document projects are higher.
If state, county and municipal government users are going to make improvements in their payments and document processing operations in 2010, they’ll likely have to do it without the benefit of additional capital, according the results of a new survey from The Association for Work Process Improvement (TAWPI) and International Accounts Payable Professionals (IAPP).
The survey was conducted in partnership with the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) and sponsored by J&B Software, Inc. (a 3i Infotech company), Fairfax Imaging, ibml, WAUSAU Financial Systems, Inc., Cash Management Solutions, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company.
Complete results are available at: http://www.tawpi.org/research/government-processing-study.aspx.
Nearly half (46.4 percent) of all survey respondents indicated that their capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged for 2010. However, 17.9 percent of all respondents stated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, and 28.6 percent said their capital budgets are significantly lower. This means that the majority of respondents (46.5 percent) have smaller capital budgets in 2010 for payments automation projects. Only 3.6 percent of respondents to the electronic survey from TAWPI and IAPP reported that their 2010 capital budgets are slightly higher, while 3.6 percent said they are significantly higher.
The outlook is only slightly better for state revenue agencies, with 6.3 percent of respondents indicating that their 2010 budgets for payments initiatives are slightly higher, and 6.3 percent reporting that their budgets are significantly higher. About a third (37.5 percent) of state revenue agencies indicated that their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent said they are significantly lower and 18.8 percent reported they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies reported that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower, while 33.3 percent said that their budgets are unchanged.
Three-quarters (75 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 25 percent said they are significantly lower compared to 2009. Among the city government entities that responded to the question, 60 percent said their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 40 percent stated their capital budgets are significantly lower.
It is important to note that none of the (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities or city government entities that responded to the question said their budgets for payments automation projects are higher in 2010. Clearly, capital continues to be very tight for government operations.
The budget situation is almost identical for document automation projects. Almost half of all survey respondents (44.4 percent) indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 14.8 percent of all respondents stated that their capital budgets are slightly lower, and 29.6 percent indicated that their budgets are significantly lower. Only 7.4 percent of all respondents indicated that their capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher in 2010, while a fortunate 3.7 percent stated that they were significantly higher.
The budget situation is a bit better for state revenue agencies, with 12.5 percent indicating that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher compared to 2009, and 6.3 percent reporting that they are significantly higher. Still, 37.5 percent of state revenue agencies said their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent stated that their budgets are significantly lower compared to 2009, and 12.5 said they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies report that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, while 33.3 percent said they are unchanged.
One-third (33.3 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower compared to 2009, while 66.7 percent stated that they are unchanged. Similarly, 40 percent of city government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower, while 60 percent stated that they are unchanged.
The federal government respondent to the survey indicated that its 2010 capital budget for document automation projects is significantly lower compared to 2009. It is worth noting again that none of the responding (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities, city government entities, or federal government agencies stated that their 2010 budgets for document projects are higher.
Getting a raise at work – not as hard as you think
Posted by Mark Brousseau
With the ever-increasing cost of living, employees at all levels would love to get a raise. But how do you make your pitch to the boss and succeed in the face of today’s economic difficulties?
Diane L. Katz, Ph.D., a Tucson, Arizona based organization consultant and author of the new book, Win at Work! The Everyone Wins Approach to Conflict Resolution, offers a strategy for resolving workplace conflicts such as debating the merits of a raise. You need a game plan that allows you to be professional, assertive but not confrontational, and clear about what you want. Diane Katz’s time-tested approach speeds up decision-making, blends intuition and logic, and leaves everyone comfortable with the solution.
To get a raise, she recommends thinking carefully about what you want and how your performance compares to the other employees around you. Next, research the wage rates and ranges of other workers in your profession and with your level of experience and responsibility.
Determine what is negotiable. Identify all the possible forms of compensation that can be given to you. In addition to your hourly rate or salary, consider vacation time, paid health leave, travel and per diem, and the ability to work at home. Can you get paid for key product or service deliverables by the unit or by the job? Bonuses and commissions may also be something you can negotiate.
After doing your homework, ask your boss for a meeting. At the start, present the key data that support your case. Describe what you have accomplished and any promises made to you, then state what you want. Assure the boss that you like the work and the challenge, but expect to be fairly and appropriately compensated.
Be prepared to receive a tough or even a negative response. Accept criticism, but say what you have you learned from mistakes and misunderstandings and remain firm.
If you get yes, show appreciation but don’t leave without asking for confirmation or at least a timeframe for when you will have the details on your new compensation and the effective date.
If the answer is no, assess what you learned. Focus on how your work performance is viewed, and what you need to do to protect your future there or elsewhere.
No matter what the outcome, you win by standing up for yourself, making your feelings known, demonstrating your commitment and ability, and maintaining your self-respect.
With the ever-increasing cost of living, employees at all levels would love to get a raise. But how do you make your pitch to the boss and succeed in the face of today’s economic difficulties?
Diane L. Katz, Ph.D., a Tucson, Arizona based organization consultant and author of the new book, Win at Work! The Everyone Wins Approach to Conflict Resolution, offers a strategy for resolving workplace conflicts such as debating the merits of a raise. You need a game plan that allows you to be professional, assertive but not confrontational, and clear about what you want. Diane Katz’s time-tested approach speeds up decision-making, blends intuition and logic, and leaves everyone comfortable with the solution.
To get a raise, she recommends thinking carefully about what you want and how your performance compares to the other employees around you. Next, research the wage rates and ranges of other workers in your profession and with your level of experience and responsibility.
Determine what is negotiable. Identify all the possible forms of compensation that can be given to you. In addition to your hourly rate or salary, consider vacation time, paid health leave, travel and per diem, and the ability to work at home. Can you get paid for key product or service deliverables by the unit or by the job? Bonuses and commissions may also be something you can negotiate.
After doing your homework, ask your boss for a meeting. At the start, present the key data that support your case. Describe what you have accomplished and any promises made to you, then state what you want. Assure the boss that you like the work and the challenge, but expect to be fairly and appropriately compensated.
Be prepared to receive a tough or even a negative response. Accept criticism, but say what you have you learned from mistakes and misunderstandings and remain firm.
If you get yes, show appreciation but don’t leave without asking for confirmation or at least a timeframe for when you will have the details on your new compensation and the effective date.
If the answer is no, assess what you learned. Focus on how your work performance is viewed, and what you need to do to protect your future there or elsewhere.
No matter what the outcome, you win by standing up for yourself, making your feelings known, demonstrating your commitment and ability, and maintaining your self-respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
