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

[Abid Farooqui <farooqui@tampabay.rr.com>]

Dear Mr. Schuldt,
I appreciate your points and from one point of view they are quite right.
I have some points or comments however.
As I had mentioned earlier that I believe that vertical standards are
probably passing information in say a PO that is probably not completely
necessory for a PO. It may be necessory but not in a PO unit of work.
I agree that delivery schedule is a requirement for a PO. But it is not just
a requirement for an airplane part but a requirement most likely in any PO
even a light bulb order. Delivery schedule may be much more relaxed in a
light bulb order and very timely and close in an airline order. But lets
look at some other things you mentioned.
"The inspection criteria (per some ASME standard) are likely to be a
requirement of the PO. "
My answer is a simple no. The inspection criteria is a requirement but it
can be detached from the purchase order and put in another document (invent
a generic business document regarding inspecting criteria and use it). In
the PO you can easily define a list of other documents that are related to
that PO and if the inspection document is one of them you can list it in the
PO. This makes the PO an independent unit of work.

I believe unless otherwise proven that this kind of business processing has
not been divided enough to be at the most efficient level that it can be and
unless I am not understanding your example it seems to me more and more that
I may be right.
This is the same kind of difference when you use C as apposed to C++ or
Java. One uses OO principles and one does not. Seems to be like the EDI
documents like a PO do not use any such data guiding principle as OO. You
have to decouple these dependencies and look at the PO model to be sort of
an object on its own. Has any one tried using some modelling tools to come
up with business document specification. I guess OO EDI was doing that but
it was not very condusive to XML but to other technologies like CORBA which
are much more complex.

Sincerely,
Abid Farooqui


----- Original Message -----
From: "Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com>
To: "'David Lyon'" <djlyon@one.net.au>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry]


> List,
>
> The is a major difference between buying non-inspectable commodity items
> such as light bulbs used in a facility versus inspectable items such as
> landing gear struts that go into a passenger plane. The processes that
> generate the requirement and the processes that verify order fulfillment
are
> completely different. For the light bulb example, a building custodian
might
> use a credit card to order a case of light bulbs and keep an inventory in
a
> storeroom. For the passenger plane landing gear strut example, the buyer
> might evaluate several candidate bids from several
engineering/manufacturing
> firms that have the expertise to jointly design and build the landing gear
> strut. The passenger plane integrator (prime contractor) must ensure that
> the landing gear strut properly interfaces to many other parts of the
> aircraft and specify critical interfaces. Delivery schedule is probably
> critical since the integrator (prime contractor) can't maintain an
inventory
> of the thousands of parts that go into each aircraft - rather delivery
> schedule is a key requirement of the PO. In addition, many of the parts
must
> be inspected for defects (I'm certain you could relate to this safety
> precaution on a part as critical as a landing gear strut). The inspection
> criteria (per some ASME standard) are likely to be a requirement of the
PO.
>
> Bottom line - the requirements in a landing gear strut purchase order are
> vastly different from those in a simple light bulb procurement. As a
result,
> should the PO for a light bulb pay the penalty of having to address the
> multitude of topics (extra overhead) that are required for the landing
gear
> strut? My strong suspicion is --- no.
>
> Having stated my point - it is my hope that common (core component) data
> elements applicable across multiple industries and used within multiple
> transactions will be addressed by this ebXML list. Examples include -
> address, currency, organization, etc.
>
> Ron Schuldt
> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lyon [mailto:djlyon@one.net.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:49 PM
> To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry]
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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