Hi Michael & EDI-L'ers --
I'll add my 2 cents for the reasons that businesses trivialize the
understanding of business in an B2B implementation. It is no mystery to
me. I've been researching the early days of ebXML, RosettaNet, and the
2000 other XML "standards" bodies. The early XML zealots made the case
-- and some still do -- that their respective committees have brought
together all the experts from hundreds of companies and the business
issues have been resolved -- by committee. All you need to do is
register your company at an internet registry, use their business
models, & suppliers/customers can come to you & "plug & play" the B2B
process. What many EDI/ebiz folks do not understand is that this
message was -- and still is -- conveyed to senior management of a very
large number of companies and by organizations/universities that should
know better. A Silicon Valley rumor is that executives were advised
they should fire their EDI folks as they were no longer needed, and
think of the cost savings of getting rid of these "expensive
consultants"!! There was no appreciation of the business knowledge of
these individuals.
The high-tech management was especially susceptible because they wanted
to believe an internet solution was cheaper and the business process
issues just dissolve because of the use of the internet. They were
shown "easy-to-read" XML comparisons to "hard-to-read" EDI, not
understanding these were not "standards-based" XML examples, some of
the comparisons were absurd; and does the computer care how "readable"
it is, as long as it is mapped properly. Marketing took over
eBusiness. Remember all the ads: "We saved $500 million by doing
eCommerce"? They were too far removed to understand that EDI over the
internet existed since 1995 and was already evolving. They also did not
understand nor appreciate the level of sophistication required to
implement complex processes across companies. In the early days of
eBusiness, it was not uncommon for large companies to have one group
piloting the "new" eBiz transactions based on web/XML, and another "old"
legacy EDI group doing that "low techie stuff" that management thought
would be "dead" in a year or two. Only after years did some of the
management begin to understand that the two groups were facing the
identical business issues; XML did not prove to be faster, more
accurate and less costly to implementation; AND EDI was not dead. There
was no magic silver bullet out on the internet that solved their
business issues or created standardized business processes. Many senior
managers still do not understand this.
Normally, I like to reference my sources, but the person who wrote this
in 2002 is respected in the B2B industry; and (I presume) would now be
embarrassed by his comments. His former company (which sells an XML
solution) still has his article on their web site:
Quote: "The cost of installing a basic XML application can be as much
as 50% less than an EDI link. Any browser that is capable of
presenting the transmitted data is an adequate client, and the costs per
transmitted message are significantly lower when compared to EDI.
Additionally, with EDI, data must often be re-entered before it can be
processed further with a company's other applications, such as its
internal accounting software, or its merchandise information system.
XML, on the other hand, enables data to be easily exchanged between
different applications and then processed directly." End quote.
Misinformed (to me) as the above quote seems, it was the basis used by a
Harvard B-school publication written by one of their professors to
recommend XML standards over the use of EDI. Quoting from a promotional
piece from the VP of Sales of a very small company is not the usual
rigorous Harvard B-school quantitative methodology one would expect.
Stanford University gets in the act, too. In their paper, "Measuring
Benefits of RosettaNet Standards -- Final Report", in their ROI analysis
they include instructions for their worksheet. {This worksheet includes
the detailed calculations of the expected reduction to be realized in
[...EDI-related...] manpower costs [...] -- due to the move to non-EDI
type(s) of transactions}. In another part of the paper they say:
"Lower costs and increased efficiency are expected even if previous
processes were not manual, but were rather based on EDI transactions.
In addition, the accuracy of the data is increased."
I believe the movement to outsource EDI/B2B is also contributing to the
lack of understanding of the business issues, and the frustration of
implementing EDI or any XML B2B-based process. It is unclear if it is
the chicken or the egg. It appears to me that many of the outsourcing
companies oversell their B2B capabilities, then get caught up with the
techie stuff -- which often appears to be the only thing they know.
But, big business should understand when they are getting a slick sales
pitch on outsourcing -- but they do not have necessarily a methodology
to do so. I recently was involved with implementing EDI with a customer
that had outsourced EDI. Their implementors had no clue about
guidelines, X12, nor how to map, how to make changes to their maps, and
basic ebiz concepts. Example (one of a laundry list), they had never
heard of SCAC codes (although we were doing a world-wide ASN
implementation & they were very large Fortune 100 company).
Pre-outsourcing days, this company's implementors had known what SCAC
codes were & supported them. Finally, we said, "Send us your
proprietary carrier codes you want us to use on the ASN's". 6 weeks
later, they couldn't figure this one out either. Then they said, "OK
-- just hard-code this ONE carrier code in your map. We know it will
work." Yipes!!! Thank gawd they were cheap! But you know this one
will require corrective action later on..... Betcha that won't be cheap.
P.S. For my research, I've been looking for any early presentation from
Fadi Chehadi, formerly the president of RosettaNet. If you know
how/where I can receive a copy or ask him directly, I would appreciate
it.
Regards,
Susan
(see contact info below)
4a. Re: [EDI-L] Job Description | EDI âEUR" Gentran/Mercator | Atlanta, GA
Posted by: "Michael Mattias/LS" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mcm_talsystems
Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am ((PDT))
4/10/07
>>We have the following urgent requirement.
....
>>Experience with Gentran Integration Suite Business Process
Development and
>>mapping as well as administrative setup, code Lists, Partner
Configuration.
>>Familiarity with >EDI X12 standards. Familiarity with Unix environment.
>> Preferred Skills: Unix AIX platform familiarity as well as shell
>> scripting. Knowledge and experience with Mercator/Ascential Data
Stage TX
>> and Commerce Manager.
I continue to be amazed that a post this long and so detailed about
operating system and application software experience required says
precisely
ZERO about the industry, documents or type of trading partners to be
handled. I would think "banking" or "retail" or "manufacturing" or
something like that would appear somewhere.
And we wonder why we get software which does not meet Real World
Requirements?
Michael C. Mattias
Tal Systems Inc.
Racine WI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Susan Stecklair, President Electronic Commerce, Inc.
<http://www.ecommerce-inc.com>
( 408.996.7492 Business Office
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
...
Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>,
<JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS
REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
