Anthony, Thanks for the follow-up. I definitely think we have different priorities and realities when it comes to building company dependant, industrial strength systems that manage mission critical data. Thank you for sharing your opinions and views. Highest Regards, Ginny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beecher, Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Ginny Crane'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:46 AM Subject: RE: Re: Internet vs VAN vs capabilities and cost = Business Decis ion. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginny Crane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 5:41 PM > To: Beecher, Anthony; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: Internet vs VAN vs capabilities and cost = Business > Decision. > > > Anthony > > > These items include 24x7 mailboxing, > - leave you machine on all night > > industrial strength processors, > - as if that meant something... > > communications devices, > - duh! > > audits/logging & tracking, reporting, redundancy & network backups > - you don't have these things without a van? > > and the most expensive piece of all - customer service. > - If you didn't have people like Sterling mangling your data in the first > place, then you wouldn't need service. > > This > Value Added "stuff" costs alot of money so please do not be fooled by the > adage of the Internet being free. You simply move the VA from an outsource > type of solution to an in-house problem with hard core dollars associated > with it. > > - What's the problem? You build a good system once and it saves you money > over and over again which, I might remind you, is the goal of EDI. They way > you've described it a Van is for companies that don't want bother with a > quality implementation > > Anthony > > > > The person who created the Hypothesis email (albeit 100% correct or not) hit > it with a nail on the head when they said to VAN or not to VAN is solely up > to the type of processes a business wants to take on for themselves. > > Respectfully, > > Ginny Crane > Easylink Services > EDI Business Manager > 303-750-4527 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.easylink.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Beecher, Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: Internet vs VAN vs capabilities and cost = Business Decision. > > > > Good lord! What is all this garbage? > > > > A perfect example of the shortcoming of EDI - get two overzealous > > sophisticates involved in your decision making process and you get bogged > > down in a bunch of perfumed garbage. > > > > The internet instead of the VAN is a no brainer! What company doesn't > > already have some internet connectivity? Why pay a cost per character when > > you can do it for no cost per character? > > > > If I had used VAN instead of internet, my monthly VAN costs would have > been > > about $50,000. Using the existing internet connection, the van fees were > 0$. > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen O'Shaughnessy [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:21 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Internet vs VAN vs capabilities and cost = Business Decision. > > > > > > I'm afraid your use of hypothesis testing is flawed. It is of crucial > > importance which hypothesis is used as the null. You can't just flip a > > coin. The null hypothesis looks to find just that ONE instance that > > disproves your hypothesis. The alternative is to find EVERY instance that > > proves the hypothesis. A formidable if not impossible task. > > > > The alternative hypothesis will never actually be tested. It is only > > inferred based on the results of testing the null hypothesis. If you find > > the one instance, you disprove your hypothesis. If you don't, well, it > > proves nothing. > > > > The case, as presented, is really two hypotheses: VAN's are less expensive > > and Internet is less expensive. > > > > For the current discussion we are wondering if moving to the internet is > > less expensive than the status quo of using VAN's to transact business > > documents. The null hypothesis always states the opposite of what you are > > trying to prove. In this case internet is less expensive. Again, this is > > because it's easier to find one example that disproves the hypothesis than > > the many required to prove the hypothesis. In my opinion our test should > > say: > > > > (Ho: is the standard notation for a null hypothesis) > > (H1: is the standard notation for the alternative hypothesis) > > > > Ho:The use of VAN's is the least expensive method of transacting business > > documents electronically. > > H1: The use of VAN's is the same or more expensive than other methods of > > transacting business documents electronically. > > > > The independent (the one we can manipulate) variable is methods used to > > transact business documents electronically. > > The dependent variable (the one we would like to measure) is cost. > > Unless you want to delve into multi-variate statistics, all other > parameters > > must remain the same (see below). > > > > Now all we have to do is find one method that is less expensive than using > a > > VAN. If we do we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the > alternative. > > Note: This does not prove the alternative, just that we couldn't find > > statistical significance to reject it. > > > > This may sound like a bunch of semantics to you but it is vitally > important > > if you don't want to be duped by statistics. Statistics don't lie. But > our > > ignorance, fueled by zealous sales people, can be used against us. From > > Michael's hypotheses it is very easy to prove both. Most ISP are less > > expensive than VAN's. But given the right set of additional parameters > and > > the VAN's will come out ahead. In short the original hypotheses are > useless > > unless you are trying to sell something to an unsuspecting buyer. > > > > What's key to this discussion is whether or not all the other parameters > are > > the same. I fear our hypotheses are too broad to be tested. At least the > > cost is not a simple access fee. There are many other costs which must be > > factored into the test. Michael did a good job of showing us just how > many > > other parameters are involved. > > > > As Michael noted, to make an informed decision an number of things, unique > > to your business, must be looked at. In general internet transactions are > > less expensive. They offer a wider variety of formats and options. But, > > unless you are in a position to take advantage of these other options, the > > VAN will be the best deal. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Burbury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:35 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Internet vs VAN vs capabilities and cost = Business Decision. > > > > > > Hi there all, > > > > Due to the number of responses I have received on my previous email, I > > believe it would be worthwhile to start a new thread to discuss the NULL > > versus ALTERNATE Hypothesis of Internet versus VAN service provision, > costs > > and capabilities, and therefore ones sound and quantified Business > Decision. > > > > As discussed previously, I offered two Hypothesis. > > > > The Null Hypothesis: > > > > "Using the Internet to transact business documents is cheaper than using a > > VAN." > > > > Of which the Alternate Hypothesis is: > > > > "Using a VAN to transact business documents is cheaper than using the > > Internet." > > > > The order of these two Hypothesis is not of importance. I could have > > flipped a coin and ordered them accordingly and the outcome would not be > any > > different. There are only three possible outcomes: > > > > 1. The NULL Hypothesis is true > > 2. The Alternate Hypothesis is true > > 3. Neither Hypothesis is true - the costs are the same. > > > > There can be no other outcome to the proposed Hypothesis. > > > > The outcome of your research into the two Hypothesis will result in a > sound > > and quantified Business Decision. > > > > > > It has already been proven that the following Hypothesis is true: > > > > Transacting Business documents in Electronic Format can save money, > > streamline business processes and reduce the number of defects on each > > opportunity. The opportunity for defect can be anything from re-typing > data > > from a form to supply of the correct "stuff" to a customer on time and > > within budget - to billing the correct amount. An opportunity for a > defect > > can be any piece along the process of performing the desired business > > outcome. By reducing the number of possibilities of a defect, one can be > > assured it will impact the business bottom line significantly (you can > tell > > I work for GE <grin>). > > > > Now, working on these two Hypothesis statements above, one needs to weigh > up > > all the factors that impact the choice to be made. > > > > For example: > > > > What computing environment and capabilities do I currently have? > > What computing environment and capabilities do my trading partners have? > > What is the Business computing strategy? > > What is my Industry computing strategy? <- Important one that is often > > neglected. > > Do I have sufficient in-house skills to complete the project myself? > > Should I outsource the project to a provider of service whom has specific > > skills I require? > > How do I quantify if I should do it in-house or outsource the project? > > > > Each business will have it's own answers to these types of "Brainstorming" > > questions and there is usually many more than what I have listed above, > I'm > > just trying to give you a starting point. I would recommend that you > > consult with your trading partners to also find out what their computing > > strategy is, if they have one. This will all aid in your calculations on > > how the project will proceed. > > > > One you have defined some background as to the possibilities of your > > project's scope, you may now define a "List of Requirements". > > > > For example: > > > > I require that 100% of my trading partners communicate electronically. > > I require a minimum 99.7% uptime for the service provision. > > I require data formats to be compatible with the solution proposed and my > > trading partner's solutions. > > I require the solution to be secure and free from possible abuse. > > > > Now you have your list of requirements, you can then move forward and > > "tender" for a quotation of service provision. > > This may be in-house or may be from an external consultant or may even be > > from a friend and should be from all of them. > > > > From the tender(s), one must break down all pieces associated with the > > service provision and costing(s) associated with each piece until you > > finally get to a "cost per transaction". These pieces should include: > > > > Network and redundancy or availability guarantees and fees/penalties. > > Software, upgrades, annual maintenance and consulting fees. > > Internal resource utilization time and training. > > Infrastructure requirements. > > > > Again there will be many more items of consideration. > > > > Now, going back to the Hypothesis, one will be true for YOUR business and > > one will not. How you come to this decision will be based on the > questions > > you ask and the capabilities of your business and that of your trading > > partners. > > > > To best describe this, I will provide an example in which the resultant > > answer was that the NULL Hypothesis was true and the Internet proved to be > a > > more cost effective medium of service provision. > > > > A specific "closed community" wished to form an alliance to trade business > > documents electronically. The meaning of "closed community" is that these > > businesses did not require the trade of business documents outside of the > > closed group of partners. The community itself was of reasonable size of > > 500 partners. The 500 partners mostly had no computing environment or > > strategy and were in areas of poor communications infrastructure (ever > been > > to Papua New Guinea or Fiji?). The requirements of the trading partners > > were minimal and most already had access to the Internet for Web browsing > > and email. Security was important for the business transactions, but the > > consortium of partners chose to use the least expensive security option > > (being PGP Email). Secondly, the reliability of the solution was not > > paramount as if email systems failed, a reversion to FAX was used. In > house > > integration to back end systems also was not paramount for the project for > > each partner as most did not even have back end systems and relied heavily > > on manual processes. > > > > So as you can see, each business case will make one of the Hypothesis true > > and one not or it may in fact come out as being equal in cost of > provision. > > If it does come out equal, how do you choose? If two cars you like are > > identical in price and services, which car would you choose to buy? Brand > > name? Reliability? or even a recommendation from a Friend? If the two are > > equal, you will need to "drill down" into the long term costing of > provision > > of service, reliability and features. It should also provide a means of > > "future proofing" your solution so that new technology can be easily > > incorporated. It may be EDI and XML over SMTP S/MIME or HTTP/S today, but > > who knows what is coming in the future? Maybe a method of monitoring > human > > thoughts for patterns so that businesses know when to target specific > > services or products to your "thoughts of improving your specific > > requirements?" Who knows? > > > > As always, I welcome feedback and will happily assist in helping you > > determine what is best for your situation. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Michael Burbury > > GE ecXpress > > System Administration > > > > My views are not those of the company I work for and are purely my own > views > > on this subject. Please do not think that because I work for a VAN, I > might > > be biased towards the ALTERNATE Hypothesis. I take a passive stance that > > states that either Hypothesis may be applicable to a specific requirement > > definition and will mostly be equal in cost of provision. > > > > ======================================================================= > > 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/
