John is very right, and very brave. Talk about 800 lb gorillas! Not
only are they completely different from each other, they have all felt
free to modify the standards as they please, so prepare for a bumpy
ride. Only thing worse I've seen is 837/HIPAA.
Leah
-----Original Message-----
From: John Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Chrysler implementation guidelines
Paul:
All 3 major auto companies are doing something completely
different from each other.
While Ford and Chrysler both use X12, they're very different.
And GM uses UN/EDIFACT, just to be completely different.
Of the three, Chrysler is by far the hardest to comply with on
an on-going basis. The information they provide is hard to
integrate with existing systems, and their time requirements
are difficult to meet. It's almost impossible for a smaller
shop to meet their timetables on a regular basis.
I've worked with all the automotive companies for EDI at one
time or another, so if you have specific questions I can be of
assistance with, please e-mail me off-list and I'll be happy to
help. Automotive EDI is my specialty. That goes for you, too,
Gregory.
John Miller
Miller Associates
Data Integration Consultants
---- On , Wakelam Paul ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greetings,
> Are the implementations of Ford and Chrysler similar for the
830 and
> 856 ?
>
> What are the differences ?
> Is it true GM USA no longer uses ANSI for schedules and ASNs ?
> Is the second tier automotive industry in the US standardised
in terms
> of it
> formats ?
>
> rgds Paul
=======================================================================
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/
