William
I would like to disagree with you on where you place the blame in your
story. This is not a stupid EDI story, but a smart human story with a
stupid business application developer. They have figured out a way to
bypass the rating system application (which is based on the data contained
in the 204 and 990) by making a phone call and having loads removed manually
from the system. EDI was doing its job, tendering the load and getting an
automatic accept or reject, it was the business application that failed, not
EDI. It was the business application that allowed the shipper to bypass the
EDI tender process and remove the tender. So I would call this a stupid
application story.
All to often people blame EDI for application issues. Many folks blame EDI
for late 856's. That is not EDI's fault, some application is not working
correctly OR some human is not performing a task in a timely manner. The
EDI works fine, the data moves from one application to another.
But I forget, XML will solve all of these problems :).
Doug
Doug Anderson
Assistant Vice President Sales Support
Kleinschmidt Inc.
450 Lake Cook Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
847-405-7457
847-458-5234 (home office)
847-945-4619 (fax)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kleinschmidt.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Stupid EDI Stories
>
>
> I am collecting Stupid EDI Stories for my magnum opus on electronic
> commerce. Or if I never get around to writing it, then at least I can
> spread the stories around the office for a few laughs. As an example,
> here is a contribution from an EDISIM fan at a trucking company:
>
> The human element still rules. One of our major customers, who
> shall remain nameless, is a heavy user of EDI. We receive Load
> Tenders (204s) from them and are supposed to accept or reject
> hauling the load via a 990. The idea is that they can track
> accepted and rejected loads as one measure of performance. But
> to avoid an unfavorable rating, their customer service reps
> instruct our people to never reject any loads via EDI. Instead,
> we call them and the rep withdraws the tenders for any loads we
> don't want. Thus we (and our rep there) always come out perfect
> on the loads accepted report.
>
> I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find many similar examples of people
> circumventing the intentions of EDI. Would you mind sharing your
> favorite stories of egregious EDI practices? Though I would
> appreciate
> knowing the companies involved, you can rest assured that I will keep
> their real identities secret.
>
> Does anyone really think that XML will solve these sort of problems?
>
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
>
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "Commerce for a New World"
>
> ==============================================================
> =========
> 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/
