The current issue of CIO Insight magazine has a article
on the failings of RosettaNet. I would be interested
in hearing from anybody using Rosettanet about the
article or general comments on Rosettanet.
I am only the messenger, please do not shoot me.
Regards,
Dave Frenkel
> I've seen VAN bills of $60K a month, so $200K doesn't seem like a lot to
> those companies. As with everything, there is no single correct answer
> that applies to every case. What applies across the board is that the
> Internet is making fast, secure and reliable connections possible at
> lower costs, economies of scale will always apply, and service and
> expertise have tangible worth. VANs should be canny enough to use these
> facts to their advantage.
>
> Leah
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Burbury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: JB Hunt and EDI to XML (and more) conversion
>
>
> Hi there all,
>
> I would like to offer some alternate thinking of this item by offering
> the
> NULL and ALTERNATIVE Hypothesis.
>
> The Null Hypothesis:
>
> "Using the Internet to transact business documents is cheaper than using
> a
> VAN."
>
> Of which the Alternate Hypothesis is:
>
> "Using a VAN is cheaper than using the Internet to transact business
> documents."
>
> Now, the discussion begins.
>
> Assuming I already use a VAN, $200K can get me ALOT of transactions
> (about 6
> years worth on an average 800lbs gorilla). Remember I am only looking
> at
> the cost associated with the price of the actual transaction, not what
> it
> costs me to build the transaction or to communicate the transaction. If
> I
> use the Internet, I still need to build the transaction and still need
> to
> communicate it. So the cost associated with making and communicating
> the
> transaction will roughly be the same. IE: the software that maps the
> data
> to a transaction and the communications links to move the data to/from
> trading partners.
>
> Now, using the Internet, I would need a dedicated communications server
> that
> is capable of delivering the transactions reliably to my trading
> partners
> (using whatever technology). Using a VAN, the dedicated communications
> server is provided (your transaction fees). Now if I have my own
> communications server, where do I host it? I need to have dual
> redundant
> Internet connections and if my community is large, I will need a load
> balance device and several servers clustered together. Where would I
> host
> this? It would be difficult and not cost effective to do this in-house,
> so
> I go to a hosting provider. What are the costs associated with hosting
> this
> with a hosting provider? How do I recover my costs for hosting this
> service? Do I charge my trading partners fees to connect to my newly
> established service to lower my costs?
>
> My argument here is that when an 800lb gorilla takes this in house to
> provide the service, the costs associated with provision of the service
> makes them become a VAN or they wear it. If they wear the costs, are
> those
> costs higher or lower than the VAN service (that has dedicated systems
> that
> are shared by several 800lb gorillas so each are only paying a "share"
> of
> the service provision).
>
> Feel free to continue the argument as I'm sure there will be many NULL
> supporters and few ALTERNATIVE supporters, but what we are aiming for is
> to
> disprove one of the Hypothesis statements.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Michael Burbury
> GE ecXpress
> System Administration
>
> My views are not those of the company I work for and are purely my own
> views
> on this subject. Please do not think that because I work for a VAN, I
> might
> be biased towards the ALTERNATE Hypothesis. I take a passive stance
> that
> states that both Hypothesis are equal in costs and there are no savings
> associated with either method.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jwells123" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: JB Hunt and EDI to XML (and more) conversion
>
>
> > Question: does IPNet provide all the traditional VAN services like
> > transaction control, store-and-forward/guaranteed message delivery,
> and
> > archiving/auditing?
> >
> > Also, how is non-repudiation handled without the VAN?
> >
> > Regarding the article:
> >
> > "Later, smaller trading partners will be moved onto the network,
> though
> some
> > customers want to keep their EDI links in place because they don't
> want to
> > walk away from the managed services a good VAN network can provide,
> Mangold
> > admitted."
> >
> > I can't see why companies would want to take on the role of VAN
> themselves.
> > If the services provided by VANs really can be done much more
> inexpensively,
> > I'd think the VANs themselves would be doing so to stay competitive.
> >
> > "Today, integrating with trading partners is a laborious process that
> > requires J.B. Hunt developers to write CICS Cobol code and tap an EDI
> > translator to move data out of its IBM DB2 back-end databases."
> >
> > And how does XML make it easier to move data out of an IBM DB2
> database?
> > That data isn't going to morph into XML on its own.
> >
> > One other thing I don't understand: why is it supposedly necessary to
> > perform application-specific development every time a new trading
> partner
> is
> > added? Can't an EDI mapper just map the existing proprietary data
> format
> to
> > the EDI format used by the trading partner?
> >
> > Sorry if these questions are naive, I don't work in this industry but
> I'm
> > trying to deconstruct all the "XML kills EDI" hype.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Jason
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Leah Closson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: JB Hunt and EDI to XML (and more) conversion
> >
> >
> > > In a previous position (2 years ago), I had a chance to evaluate
> IPnet's
> > > "solution" and it is, indeed, a rather slick message
> > > management/communication package, very flexible and robust, I
> thought.
> > > I didn't take a look at the translation portion, as we weren't going
> to
> > > switch translators, but what I saw was pretty neat (although for
> budget
> > > reasons, not purchased) and was most definitely a VAN replacement,
> first
> > > and foremost, I'd say. It would be nice to get some solid info,
> because
> > > I am sure the business people who read this article will now be
> > > expecting even faster monkeys pulled out of ever tighter behinds ;)
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > Leah
> >
> >
> =======================================================================
> > 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/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
