Greetings,
I would suggest that you always use the same MIG as an industry group, they
normally have the same issues and need to connect the same vendors and
customers as you.
They have blazed a path and if you line up them it is easier.
Perhaps the easiest way to implement is to follow the trail of the 800 lb
gorilla.
Use the same or similar MIG as them and the same business process no matter
how crazy because your vendors are set up for it.
I have often wandered is it a copyright or intellectual property
infringement?
Has anyone patented a MIG or a business process involving EDI ?
regards Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leah Closson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 5:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Success Story
>
> 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/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
