Oops, quite correct. Upon rereading, I did misunderstand it to mean checking
whether the partner processed it successfully.
However, the theory still holds: there is a transfer of responsibility, in
this case not between partners but between systems. i.e. the translator only
has to verify that the message has gone far enough to be sure that the
'next' system has a record of it.
Cheers
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Scheuermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 May 2000 13:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EDI System Design Question
All:
I read and reread Debbie's question re controls and believe she is asking
for methods to check if the data from her EDI system was accurately and
completely passed into her internal application system for invoicing. She
has an issue of tracking the data between the EDI system and the
application.
While the 824 could be used for the EFT tracking, she still needs a method
to track if a transmission was lost, ie: 10 820's sent to bank, 10 820's
noted on the returned FA and 9 processed by bank for payment.
That's my take on it.
Bob Scheuermann
EDI Analyst
The Mentholatum Co.
716-677-2500 ext. 1519
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EDI System Design Question
Hiya,
Perhaps it's not so much the design, but rather the
philosophy behind EDI
that's a bit different to what you're used to.
The difference here is that there is a point where the
_responsibility_ gets
transferred (similar to incoterms in trading).
This is generally agreed upon within an industry. The
critical point is that
once the doc is with your partner, it's _their_
responsibility to get it
into their system or let you know if there's a problem. On
the legal side,
this should be similarly covered in your EDI trade
agreements.
Cheers
Michael Pokraka
SAP EDI Analyst
Samsung Semiconductor Europe Ltd
Please note new telephone numbers as per the UK number
change
(<http://www.numberchange.org/>)
Tel: +44 (0)20 8380-7050
Fax: +44 (0)20 8380-7218
The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged,
confidential and
protected from disclosure. If you think this email has been
received in
error please notify the following address:
<mailto:'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>.
This message transmitted on 100% recycled electrons.
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Shaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 May 2000 00:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: EDI System Design Question
Hi all,
I'm new to this list, and new to EDI. Our company has begun
several
initiatives to implement traditional EDI transactions with
customers,
suppliers, and distribution channels. As a result, we
decided it would be a
good idea to develop an infrastructure group for all those
common tasks
needed to administer EDI. We have the GENTRAN product
installed with some
customized data flows going in and out. (This was the
result of an EDI
pilot last year that was put on hold for business reasons).
Coming from a mainframe background, one of the key
principles drilled into
my head was, when you send data from one system to another,
you ALWAYS
implement some kind of control totals/audit procedures to
make sure all the
data got there correctly. I have searched all over,
including this list's
archives, for some white paper describing industry
best-practices on the
"control points" within the traditional EDI transaction life
cycle. How do
I make sure ALL the invoices our suppliers sent to our VAN
actually make it
into our AP system, and how do I make sure ALL the payment
transactions
actually make it to the bank? I understand FAs (997s) can
be used to
indicate the transaction made it to the "receiving"
translator, but how do
I make sure it gets into the receiving business
application?? How do I make
sure the custom code that moves the data from the GENTRAN
output into the
business application doesn't have a coding mistake in it
that might cause
records to be dropped/inserted incorrectly??
There seem to be 6-10 "touch points" as a transaction goes
from the
originating business application, through the translator, to
the van, into
the receiving translator and finally into the receiving
business
application. Outside of the 997 reconciliation, what would
you guys
recommend as "best practices"?? If you had it to do over,
what kind of
auditing checkpoints would you put in place??
Thanks in advance!!
Debbie Shaver
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
206.318.8739
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at
http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at
http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
