I would like to congratulate Steve on the first 8000 lb gorilla sighting on
the EDI -L list.
I know this was a typo, but I can't resist pointing out that the weight of
an adult male gorilla is only for a males 300-500 lbs.
http://www.koko.org/about/facts.html
This means tht the 800 lb Gorilla is BIG, and the 8000lb Gorilla is
technically a Walmart.
BTW Gorillas recognise each other by their faces and body shapes. Each
gorilla has a unique nose print.
If only the ACH had such advanced technology.
yours in pomposity
Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve X Lee SL [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Success Story
>
> I agree in your scalability approaches, your preaching to the
> choir here.
> Although Vendor side EDI 100% scalable designs prove difficult. For
> example
> 10 customers you end up with 6 running through a generic process, 3
> running
> with enhancements of the core generic process, and 1 with totally seperate
> processes (usually the 8000 pound gorilla). There are still benefits to
> be
> reaped, albeit less.
> I don't see XML vs EDI solving this. Hey some gorillas take the
> standard and
> modify it and append their name to the end of the version....
>
> It's the indian not the arrow,
> -Steve
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Steel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Success Story
>
>
> >
> > One of the problems of trad-EDI is that it does not scale very well.....
> >
> > If it takes a week to implement a new trading partner using trad-EDI and
> > there are 500 trading partners, it will take 10 years to cover the
> > partner base....
>
>
> I must disagree with you and agree with Mr. Miller on this. EDI scales
> well IF
> THE SCALE-ER STOPS TO THINK before locking in a system design and creating
> all
> kinds of maps and integration code.
>
> Whenever I see a client/prospect for the first time, I ALWAYS ask them for
> the
> little "grid" with partner on one axis, document-direction on the other
> axis.
> I
> tell them to make the list include "every partner, every document they
> ever
> got
> asked about."
>
> While many (most?) EDI implementation consultants implement
> partner-by-partner,
> I always go document-by-document. (The same document in both directions
> counts
> as two documents) . That way I know the system will be "scalable" as more
> partners are added for that document - because the first partner for any
> document is, in effect, a change of scale and you get an automatic
> scalability
> test!
>
> Yes, I usually need to talk the client out of going partner-by-partner.
> True,
> many client/prospects have reached some kind of crisis point, ("850, 810
> and
> 856
> tomorrow or I buy elsewhere!"), but for the most part they accept that the
> best
> plan is the plan which allows for growth ("After you get Mr. Important
> Customer
> set up.").
>
> In your example, setting up a system which requires a week to set up each
> additional trading partner should never have happened, as long as you knew
> you
> were going to have 500 partners. Instead, more time should have been spent
> focused on, "how do I make this document easy to implement for additional
> partners?" Yes, you spend a little more time up front, but you more than
> make
> it up in volume.
>
>
> Michael C. Mattias
> Tal Systems
> Racine WI
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> =======================================================================
> 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/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
