No more preaching to the choir. I have had this go both ways, it's very
easy and relatively quick if you're the 800lb gorilla. If you're the
supplier, it's not quite as quick or easy. Either way, the more you do,
the faster you get (with the occasional exception).
One thing I do disagree with completely is from John Miller:
EDI translators are pretty cheap, and experienced EDI administrators can
be had
fairly easily, or one trained.
$3000 (initial cost, installation, training, etc.) is not cheap if you
only supply one $600 part per year. Also, I am not EASY, and while I've
tried to train well over 20 people on EDI, only the ones with really
strong foreheads (for all the desk banging) ever make it.
Have a great weekend!
Leah
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve X Lee SL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 8:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Success Story
I agree in your scalability approaches, your preaching to the
choir here.
Although Vendor side EDI 100% scalable designs prove difficult. For
example
10 customers you end up with 6 running through a generic process, 3
running
with enhancements of the core generic process, and 1 with totally
seperate
processes (usually the 8000 pound gorilla). There are still benefits to
be
reaped, albeit less.
I don't see XML vs EDI solving this. Hey some gorillas take the
standard and
modify it and append their name to the end of the version....
It's the indian not the arrow,
-Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Steel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Success Story
>
> One of the problems of trad-EDI is that it does not scale very
well.....
>
> If it takes a week to implement a new trading partner using trad-EDI
and
> there are 500 trading partners, it will take 10 years to cover the
> partner base....
I must disagree with you and agree with Mr. Miller on this. EDI scales
well IF
THE SCALE-ER STOPS TO THINK before locking in a system design and
creating all
kinds of maps and integration code.
Whenever I see a client/prospect for the first time, I ALWAYS ask them
for the
little "grid" with partner on one axis, document-direction on the other
axis.
I
tell them to make the list include "every partner, every document they
ever
got
asked about."
While many (most?) EDI implementation consultants implement
partner-by-partner,
I always go document-by-document. (The same document in both directions
counts
as two documents) . That way I know the system will be "scalable" as
more
partners are added for that document - because the first partner for any
document is, in effect, a change of scale and you get an automatic
scalability
test!
Yes, I usually need to talk the client out of going partner-by-partner.
True,
many client/prospects have reached some kind of crisis point, ("850, 810
and
856
tomorrow or I buy elsewhere!"), but for the most part they accept that
the
best
plan is the plan which allows for growth ("After you get Mr. Important
Customer
set up.").
In your example, setting up a system which requires a week to set up
each
additional trading partner should never have happened, as long as you
knew you
were going to have 500 partners. Instead, more time should have been
spent
focused on, "how do I make this document easy to implement for
additional
partners?" Yes, you spend a little more time up front, but you more
than make
it up in volume.
Michael C. Mattias
Tal Systems
Racine WI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
