Criag, I think one thing that is being missed here, and was stated in your earlier shipping example, is that when the vendor is forced to pay the retailer's share of the testing costs that the cost probably gets built in to the cost of the product that the retailer buys. Please also realize that when a retailer/trading partner tries to push off the costs of their testing onto their partner, that the retailer isn't getting away without paying any of the necessary testing costs.
-Mary > > Hi Craig, > We test all new implementations so I have no objection to testing. > > For a customer doing a large roll out it might make sense to use a > service.  The fee that the service charges each of the vendors is > covering the cost of the roll out. But that customer is also contracting > the service to represent them. And they aren't always well represented. > If a customer has clear specifications we can usually identify any gaps in > our ability to support them and work these out with the customer. Usually > gaps are things our ERP system might have trouble supporting like the > customer requests the invoice number on the ASN.  Which might be okay if > the customer doesn't also require timely ASNs. For these discussions the > service can get in the way. > These services do seem to be trying to clean up their act but from the > vendor perspective they can be a costly waist of time.  I have > experienced the following. > A test order for a product my company does not sell.  Which I must fake > processing and return an ASN and invoice that I can't possibly have run > through my test systems. > The exact same test order sent for the next customer who required testing. > Test coordinators that were unfamiliar with the customers requirements and > unable to answer questions for clarification. > Services that require you complete the testing in a specific time frame or > pay an additional fee. But then they don't give you advance notice when > your test period will begin and don't provide the customers specs until > you start the testing. > I recall going through this process with a "Big" retailer. We passed all > the tests and then the first production invoices failed because there were > requirements not communicated or included in the tests. > And I wasn't clear.  We had already paid for implementation and were live > with the 850, 810, 856 and 997s with the customer who required that we > again pay a fee to implement the 860. What would actually have been > accomplished? We simply asked them to just start sending them live in > parallel. They wouldn't do it. > Having said all that, I have never had a case where we refused to > implement EDI with a customer because they used one of these services. > Tim > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/20/10, Craig Dunham <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Craig Dunham <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Re: Question on Testing & Economics > To: "'Timothy Cronin'" <[email protected]>, [email protected], > "'Retail Edi'" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 1:22 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > >  > > You’re missing the point I was > trying to make… and you’re making your claims based upon “one > customer†that > went belly up as you waited and didn’t do what they asked you for. And > by not > working with them, you’re not being much of a “partner†either… > Instead, you’re > trying to use your own weight (by waiting) to try to twist the customer > into > your way of thinking. Not a partnership at all. > >  > > As for what service and purpose > does testing provide…? Well, it shows that you understand the trading > partner’s > requests and requirements. It shows that your system can process their > document and data and provide a 997… it’s knowing if your system > accepted the > data being send and that the 997 came back with an “Accepted†code, > rather than > a rejected code. > >  > > And no, I have to disagree with > your final statement – that those testing “services are only servicing > themselvesâ€â€¦Â And trading partners that may require you to test via a > 3rd > party source can and DO get it. As I posted originally, the company I > worked > for used a 3rd party testing service. Why? Because I took an EDI > program with 40 trading partners and turned it into almost 700 trading > partners > in just 2 years…   When a trading partner uses one of these providers, > it’s not > that they “walk away†from the process and expect the testing service > to > completely take care of the testing. You can still contact the trading > partner > with questions and concerns about the data… With being just a single > person > EDI “department†do you really think that the kind of growth I > experienced > without using a 3rd party source…? Not a chance. > >  > > And for all the complaints that > many have regarding 3rd party testing, I’m sure you can find others > with NO complaints. > >  > > Craig Dunham > > Bear > Necessities Computing > > EDI > Sherpa > > Author/blogger > > RetailEDI.com > > EDITalk.com > >  > > > > From: Timothy Cronin > [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:08 PM > > To: [email protected]; Craig Dunham; Retail Edi > > Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Re: Question on Testing & Economics > > > >  > > > > > I don't often join in the conversations.  I don't > jump on newbies and don't get into non-edi discussions like immigration. > I do > agree that this is not the forum to bare ones political leanings. > >  > > > But this is my hot button. I detest paying good money (not > my own) to get jerked around by testing services that test nothing.  I > hate assigning one of my resources to fake EDI testing to pass invalid > EDI > test criteria. > > >  > > > We had one "customer" require that we pay a > testing service to test our ability to receive an 860. And the testing > service didn't advise this hapless idiot that the ability of the vendors > to > return a 997 proved nothing. What service did they provide? We put the > request on our backlog until the requester went bankrupt. > > >  > > > If there were actual value provided by these > "services" then it would be worth the cost, but the fact of the > matter is that many of these "services" are only servicing > themselves. And when a trading partner requires you to use and pay for > them, > they are only signaling that they don't get it and aren't really a > partner. > > >  > > >  > > > Tim > > >  > > >  > > > >  > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Retail Edi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Retail Edi <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Re: Question on Testing & Economics > > To: [email protected], "Craig Dunham" > <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 7:16 PM > >  > > > > Cool, Craig. I'm fine with everything > you said. > >  > > I'm really looking for feedback on dropped connection opportunities due > to testing fees rather than arguing whether or not it should be done or > by whom. I want to know how often you fine consultants see it happen > e.g. a dropped EDI connection with a retailer because there is a testing > fee > required. > >  > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Craig Dunham <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > From: Craig Dunham <[email protected]> > > Subject: [EDI-L] Re: Question on Testing & Economics > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 9:28 PM > > > >  > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > [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/
