Re: [Fwd: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry]

[David Lyon <djlyon@one.net.au>]

Abid,

I tend to agree with you Abid. There are too many technical people that say
that a Purchase Order for an Electronics company is entirely different and
non interchangable for those say, for Insurance. It's ridiculous.

The fact is that every day, Electronics companies get Insurance, and
Insurance companies buy light bulbs. That's the way it was last time I knew
of anyway.

So for anybody to say that an Electronics Industry PO can't be understood by
Insurance, is either off the planet or an EDI consultant.

Invoicing between Electronics and Insurance, and account payments have also
happened for the last one hundred years as far as I am aware.

Of course, there are going to be certain elements that may need to be added
into documents between particular trading partners. It was only because EDI
elements weren't tagged that this was so difficult with EDI. With XML, the
problem has gone away and trading partners can add elements without having
to redefine and register completely new documents.

POs aren't super complicated documents, nor invoices, nor statements.

ebXML needs to be forward looking, not looking to solve all the answers for
all industries, but just provide a basic framework of XML documents that can
then be "extended" to suit per trading partner requirements.

Once again, it was only a technology limitation that prevented EDI from
being able to do this in the first place.

David


----- Original Message -----
From: Abid Farooqui <farooqui@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry]


> Looks like I hit a nerve there Mike.
> I actually do have a line of work and it is certainly not directly in EDI
or
> similar. I am an engineer and a computer Scientist and busines problems
are
> just one thing a computer scientist can work on in conjunction with
business
> people. I was simply pointing out what I have seen around.
> Just consider it a fresh outsider perspective or similar. Standing
outside,
> I simply cannot come up with a good reason why a PO for an electronics
> company would have to have completely different fields and options than a
PO
> for companies in lets say insurance industry. Now before you go and state
> the obvious that the business processes for both these industries are
> completely different, think about it from outside the box and outside of
> that world. What we are trying to achieve is automation of the business
> process. You can divide a business process or any other process for that
> matter into unit of works completely independent of each other. If you
can't
> your approach isn't quite hitting the nail. When this unit of work is
> completely independent of any other UOW in the process then this UOW is
> serving the exact same purpose for the insurance industry as it is for the
> electronics industry. Perhaps what is happening is that we are carrying
> information around in the POs that is really not relevent directly there
but
> is relevent further along after immediately processing the PO. In that
case
> we have not really defined PO as a completely independent unit of work and
> more work is needed and my point was that this is the domain of a
standards
> body. In the end something like this will make business processing easier.
I
> hope you see my point.
> Thanks for the link to the tutorial. I am familiar with X12 to the point
of
> understanding some basics but I will make sure to check it out.
> Thanks
> Sincerely,
> Abid Farooqui
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Rawlins" <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>
> To: <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry]
>
>
> > In response to Abid Farooqui's comments about EDI not being standard,
> concerns
> > about ebXML going the same way, and his proposed solution, I can only
say
> this:
> >
> > Yes, it is a pain (if you want a little more detail about why it's a
pain
> in
> > EDI, I invite you to check out the article of the same name under the
X12
> > Technical tutorial at my web site:  www.rawlinsecconsulting.com).  But,
> you have
> > to remember a few basic truths.  Even though it would be ideal if
business
> folks
> > were a bit more aware of some of the IT costs involved in doing what
they
> want
> > to do, it is ultimately business needs that drive things and not IT
needs
> or
> > wants.  We can't put the cart before the horse.  EDI POs and ebXML
> compliant POs
> > will be different for different companies and industries because the
> business
> > processes in which they are used are different.  It is as simple as
that.
> If
> > you want the POs to be the same, then the business processes need to be
> changed
> > - something that probably will not happen in any of our lifetimes.  If
you
> have
> > problems accepting any of this, you probably need to find a different
line
> of
> > work.  There has been at least one other suggestion that a "least common
> > denominator" approach such as the one you suggest would work, but it
will
> almost
> > certainly not work because the data requirements of the business
processes
> will
> > not be met.
> >
> > The context dependent core component work should help ease or at least
> make it
> > easier to identify the differences in POs, but it won't eliminate them.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org
>