I think that's about the most accurate theory - minimalist.
Or perhaps we Europeans are also just too lazy or too busy to concern
themselves with a possibly redundant concept: As has been mentioned, the
VANs provide tracking. If there is a problem, I will get in contact with
whomever - FA/CONTRL or not.
i.e. if I get a translation error, I will call or mail the partner's EDI
contact, whether we send an FA back or not.
As another example for 'business redundancy': Invoices are backed up by
statements - both ways (we get regular accounts payable reports from major
customers)
All in all though, I don't disagree with the use of CONTRL, but many of our
partners don't even support it. Being in the electronics industry, we are
part of EDIFICE (www.edifice.org), a industry-specific standards body which
has never bothered about CONTRL standards.
Cheers
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 April 2001 23:22
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CONTRL message woes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve X Lee SL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Do you have any theory why Control or Aperack messages are seldomly
used
>in
>the EDIFACT world? I feel 997's are very useful and timesaving in X12.
>
I can advance theories for you (as a consultant I suppose bullshitting
is a part of my professional armoury) but in all honesty I do not know
why. I suspect that it has to do with the majority of EDI being non-
voluntary; one party has it reluctantly forced onto them by the other,
resulting in a minimalist scenario. Network acknowledgements are 'free',
and are used as confirmation of delivery. CONTRL and APERAK would
require extra systems effort and are seldom used. Even the true business
acknowledgement (a credit note for an invoice etc.) is less common than
it ought to be.
Another approach is to look at the conventional business process which
EDI is supposed to be automating. The non-EDI equivalent of CONTRL
("Your order was legible and was not eaten by the office dog") is not,
to my knowledge, used. A non-EDI negative APERAK ("We don't do green
widgets") is quite possible, but the positive version seems more
unlikely; the non-EDI order response with its added-value information
content would be used instead. The equivalent of network
acknowledgements, recorded delivery, is seldom used in business.
It is almost as if we do not trust our own technology, as witness the
fuss made about secure Internet transactions, whereas credit card
numbers are freely quoted over open telephone lines all the time. I am
quite keen on having acknowledgements for EDI transactions, but would
admit that my prime motivation in practice is to exonerate the EDI
system when things go wrong rather than directly benefiting the business
which is using the EDI system.
Regards
Chris
--
Chris Johnson tel: +44 (0)20 8 501 1490 (home)
EDIMatrix Ltd +44 (0)20 8 559 2454 (work)
+44 (0)20 8 559 2497 (fax)
http://www.edimatrix.demon.co.uk
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
