I often read that one of the challenges of EDI is
having to make changes to your internal applications for each new trading
partner integration. As I don't work with EDI, I've been trying to dig up some
examples of this.
1. Large buyers often send EDI POs with many
ship-to addresses (up to 2500). Their suppliers have to modify their
applications to split these POs into multiple orders.
(General case: The sender crams extra
information into one EDI document to reduce information repetition as
much as possible, until there are effectively multiple documents crammed into
one. The receiver has to modify their application to split the document back
apart in order to process it properly. Presumably the VAN costs savings are
greater than the costs of modifying the application, or else this is just an
example of the larger trading partner dumping their costs on the
smaller?)
2. One trading
partner wants to exchange information that currently isn't handled by the
other's application. For example, a buyer could send information in
the PO that the seller is required to repeat in the advance
ship notice (ASN), such as PO number, line numbers, dock door number, etc, but
the seller's application might not be equipped to handle this
information.
3. A buyer sends forecast data to suppliers in lieu
of purchase orders, but the forecast data must be processed as a
PO.
(This one strikes me as odd...why not just send a
PO?)
Does anyone know of other cases?
In my ongoing EDI vs. XML comparison, I notice that
XML can't really help with any of these...one more way to counter the
misconception that XML is going to solve the problem of application-level
integration with each trading partner.
|
- Re: Application-level trading partner integratio... jwells123
- Re: Application-level trading partner integ... Dave Taylor
- Re: Application-level trading partner integ... Matthew Montano
- Re: Application-level trading partner integ... Jim Divoky
- Re: Application-level trading partner integ... Hurd, Richard A (Richard)
- Re: Application-level trading partner i... Jim Divoky
- FW: Application-level trading partner integ... Bill Chessman
- Re: Application-level trading partner integ... Mark Kusiak
- Re: Application-level trading partner i... Brian Richardson
- Re: Application-level trading partner integ... Bob Scheuermann
- Re: Application-level trading partner integ... Rachel Foerster