Hi Craig, I read you treatise on testing with great interest and I agree with everything you said.
What I don't agree with is what you didn't say - so let me (as you suggested) try to "put a finger on it". You said: Everyone needs to test and everyone has testing costs to bear: both the buyer and the seller. You didn't say: Why the seller must bear the testing costs of the buyer in addition to the testing cost of the seller! I've never heard a buyer complain about testing costs, particularly when they offload them onto the seller. The complaints about testing costs seem to come from the sellers when they have to bear the testing costs of the buyer. When I first started as an EDI consultant some 15 years ago, installing and supporting our translator for sellers, we (our clients) always tested with our buyers. But we tested directly with our buyers, not without bearing oun testing costs, but without bearing the testing costs for the buyer in addition to our own testing costs. The buyers were never particularly responsive to our suggestion that we needed to raise our prices to cover their testing costs. In fact, they just kept on grinding us on price with the suggestion that we'll make it up in volume (we've all heard that before). The bottom line is that the buyer who forces the seller to bear the buyer's testing costs acts more like an 800-lb gorilla than like a trading partner. The resulting business relationship is more like a wrestling match than it is like a partnership. The old proverb that "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with poison" I believe applies in EDI partner relationships also. And, that treating each trading partner fairly and equitably will result in a much more mutually productive and profitable long-term business relationship. That's where I'd put my finger on it. These opinions are mine and mine alone. By the way, we miss you at the So. Calif. e-Business Forum meetings. Good luck in your retail business in the desert! Best regards, Dave Dave Taylor Sysmark Information Systems, Inc. 49 Aspen Way Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (O) 800-SYSMARK (800-797-6275) (F) 310-377-3550 (C) 310-561-5200 www.sysmarkinfo.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Dunham To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:28 PM Subject: [EDI-L] Re: Question on Testing & Economics It always strikes Me as being . well, I can't quite put a finger on it . but there are so many questions and issues around testing and the associated costs of testing. And so many (often) seem to be extremely opposed to the concepts - almost to the point of throwing a (virtual) punch.! It's almost as volatile a discussion as the discussions revolving around politics, religion or that certain state's upcoming law.. First, I'm pretty sure that we all agree that TESTING is a necessary part of enabling EDI. Or, really, enabling any new or different process, program or procedure, in the workplace. It's a given. Even if you eschew testing and start sending/receiving data, you will find errors, correct them and have the data resent - which, by the way, IS a form of testing. No matter what you do, however, there IS some kind of testing done. Now, since I'm again sure we all agree that testing is needed, the big discussion and sticking point often comes down to cost. So many on this list bemoan the costs associated with "3rd party testing" services - no matter how valid or valuable such testing may be to a trading partner. Of course, there is also the dilemma of working with somebody OTHER than your trading partner when testing is done this way. But still, testing needs to be done. And somebody has to pay for it - even if it's all done "in-house". We all know that Mr. Mattias is a paid EDI consultant (and obviously a pretty good one or he'd not still be in business). So are quite a few other members of this list (Art, Emmanuel, and many others!). The reason I bring these fine people up is because there is a cost associated with their work. I'm pretty sure that none of the people that consult do it for free, strictly from the bottom of their heart for the betterment and benefit of humanity. Some companies will contract Michael, Art, Emmanuel or ________ to create and enable (or just change, manage or _____) their EDI program/process. Other companies hire somebody to work for them to do the same thing. Guess what, folks. There is a COST involved in these options. These people don't work for free. Then, there is the "other side" of the EDI coin - what your trading partner is doing. Maybe they've contracted with their OWN consultant or hired their own staff to do EDI for them. And they have a cost involved, too. As some of you may remember, I worked for a fairly large retailer, as the COMPLETE EDI DEPARTMENT. Just one person with a TP list of about 700 active TPs and a handful of documents being used. That company went through a huge expansion of their EDI program and we did it using a 3rd party testing site & company. And our TPs had to pay the fee and complete the testing. Sure, the company could have hired more people for the EDI department to handle the testing. Or they could have contracted with somebody to do that, too. But somehow, that EDI testing had to be paid for. If they had done something like hiring another person (or people), then it could have affected the profit picture or the cost of the items sold in the stores or _____... In other words, SOMEBODY was paying for that testing. As some of you also may remember, I've resorted to the "other" career experience I have since I was laid off from the company I was working for. That other experience is RETAIL. At the STORE level. I started a retail store where I live. Most of it is because there is not a lot of need right now where I live for experienced EDI folks. And there is little contract work out here, as well. So, I started a retail store. The reason I mention this is to kind of drive home the point about the costs of testing - by using another cost of business - shipping. It's like EDI testing - it's a cost and SOMEBODY has to pay for it. Usually, the receiving party (that's the store in this case) pays for the items being shipped. Sometimes the shipper will pay for it. And if they do pay for it, usually it's figured into the cost of the items I'm buying from them. Instead of charging us a freight charge of 50 bucks for a shipment, maybe they add 2 cents to the cost of each item they sell. Then they can look like the "good guy" and say "Hey, we pay for freight!" and I'm a happy camper with them. I can tell you that there are some companies that we will not buy from in the future because of the way that they ship things. I ordered some shopping bags and gift boxes from one source and paid nearly HALF of the cost of good ordered in SHIPPING.! Another supplier of products also had rather high shipping charges - so I probably won't be buying from them again, either. Another aspect of the "new gig" is the costs of displays. Think about every store you've been in and you see those nifty spinners and racks and holders of the products you may be buying. Well, like EDI testing - somebody has to pay for those display racks & spinners. Most times, it's the buyer - the retailer - that pays for these racks & displays. And they're not cheap, either. I was at the California Gift Show in LA this past week and bought some new products and paid for a few displays. And then I've got some other vendors that GIVE AWAY the displays. But of the vendors that charge for the displays, there's one thing I've noticed. Some seem to use it as a profit center - by charging an exorbitant amount for the item - 150 bucks for a wire rack - and others view it as a cost of doing business and only charge the actual cost of the tem - maybe $25 instead. Again, though, somebody is paying for these displays and racks. When I'm charged an outrageous cost for the displays, it makes us think twice about the value of the items being purchased. When it comes to EDI testing - we all agree that there is a cost involved. But maybe companies need to think of the bigger picture and take the wider view in before they say "NO" to testing and enablement, all because it's going to cost them a few extra dollars up front for a truly Craig Dunham Bear Necessities Computing EDI Sherpa Author/blogger <http://www.retailedi.com/> RetailEDI.com <http://editalk.com/> EDITalk.com <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/message/28626;_ylc=X3oDMTJybjlidDN2BF9T Azk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzIxMDc2NzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA1NTgyBG1zZ0lkAzI4NjI2BHNl YwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzEyNzk1Mjk1MDI-> Re: Question on Testing & Economics Posted by: "Michael Mattias/LS" Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:17 am (PDT) >Michael, you are one of these people who has been around the block. > How many clients have you had *roughly* that decided to 'pass' on a > relationship because of testing? I's not always the "testing" specifically.. it's the "total cost" to "EDI-enable" a particular customer or vendor. That said....I only know of two of my clients who have actually used the "n-word" ("no") but... A) One has said no to about half a dozen such requests. B) I quote my clients a lot more enablements than ever happen. Unfortunately - for purposes of addressing your particular question - my phone does not ring when there is nothing to be done. Michael C. Mattias Tal Systems Inc. Racine WI [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [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: [email protected] [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/
