2014 U.S. E-Invoicing Numbers Courtesy of Billentis and PayStream

I’ve begun to highlight sections of the Billentis 2014 e-invoicing report that jumped out at us as key facts and points to share (see our first post covering a few of Bruno Koch’s observations on China). In continued coverage, we come to commentary on e-invoicing growth and market size courtesy of Billentis and PayStream Advisors in the report. Incidentally, I am in awe of the marathon times put on by PayStream’s CEO, Henry Ijams, only bested in the sector – as far as I'm aware – by the blazing speed of a certain understated executive at Taulia who would probably not want to call attention to himself with his sub 3:00 times.

But back to business. Bruno quotes Henry and his team's research, noting that “the US AP Automation Market revenue is forecast to reach $1.7 billion in 2013, a 11.9 percent increase from 2012 revenue of $1.55 billion.” Further, “AP automation market-based delivery will experience healthy growth through 2016, when worldwide revenue is projected to reach $2.4 billion. The market for e-invoicing is opening up. Currently at $280 million, PayStream predicts demand is growing at a compound average annual growth rate of 13 percent. But if you look at where we are in the big picture, we are still in about the third inning.”

Spend Matters' own growth numbers for the e-invoicing market are actually slightly more optimistic but we’re counting some other elements of related P2P document exchange and connectivity as part of our analysis and forecast. Ultimately, whichever way you slice the numbers – and there are different ways to do it – the inclusion (or exclusion) of EDI-based approaches for connectivity which may include e-invoicing components (e.g., supplier portals) or not will tip the cards materially from a sizing perspective (but not necessarily a growth one). And we’d argue that especially if we factor in trade financing (receivables financing and payable financing) we’re actually in the first inning of the game, not the third.

Which is good if you’re from Chicago because in most cases, the Cubs would have lost by the bottom of the third – and we all like games where every party has a chance to win.

Share on Procurious

Discuss this:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.