[ebxml-dev] elevator pitches (was) gorillas, beaches, etc.

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

    Mark is absolutely right that the value propositions
in the 1.0 requirements document that Mike and his team wrote in 2001 are
still the right ones.  See
http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebREQ.pdf.
    However, I agree with Scott and Rainer that we (ebXML)
have been too slow to offer simple, user-friendly explanations, and get
the pitch out to the right audiences.  Some of that is undoubtedly
due to the nonprofit and nonaligned nature of ebXML.  However, the
great advance work that Mark and his colleagues have done for other
standards proves that nonprofit efforts can conduct successful
PR.   
    Those interested in pursing this further as to ebXML
might join the relevant discussion list Apu Sengupta has launched,
ebxml-mktg at
http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl.

At 04:34 AM 6/17/02, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
> Rainer
> and Scott,  If
> you are looking for the why of ebXML, I suggest you read the requirements
> document. 
>
> > -----Original
> > Message----- 
> > From: Rainer
> > Volz
> > [mailto:rv@vrtprj.com]
> > *** I just
> > wanted to support what Scott Beach wrote:
>
> >  -----Original
> > Message----- 
> > > From:
> > > Beach, Scott
> > > [mailto:Scott.Beach@goodrich.com]
> > > [...]
> > > ebXML simply
> > > lacks an "elevator speech" that is compelling to IT
> > > executives. 
> > > Web services
> > > doesn't suffer from this same marketing  paralysis. 
> > > Another
> > > case where
> > > better technologically doesn't correlate to more
> > > successful.
> >

~ James Bryce Clark
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.   www.mmiec.com
~ Chair, US ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce  
~ www.abanet.org/buslaw/cyber/ecommerce/ecommerce.html
~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com   jbc@lawyer.com
~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.