|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Fax to EDI/Data
August,
You lose respect among professionals when you fail
to keep your comments focused on the business issue.
Everyone who posts deserves courtesy and consideration.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "augiesurf" <
To: "SAFExchange Services" <
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fax to EDI/Data
> Robert,
>
> I hope this is not taken as a slam, but you didn't say anything. You
> provided a long message about your background and how things ought to
> be better.
>
> My thanks to all who have responded to my initial inquiry on this
> topic, the varied comments/views were insightful.
>
> My conclusion: fax to data technology is not what we want it to be;
> webforms are great, if the sender is willing to use; senders who have
> a system that can send a fax automatically are happy and will not
> change...so get used to it; however, not all fax senders have an
> automatic system, as some still sneaker/sandlenet the faxes, so there
> is opportunity there; where possible, a supplier should consider
> providing lower level of service if a customer continues to send
> faxes, or even consider charging a service fee; if a customer wants
> electronic invoices....make sure they send electronic orders.
>
> August
>
> --- In "SAFExchange Services" <sxc@s...> wrote:
> > Dear Jeff Mick,
> >
> > Excellent! Thank you for pressing the issues concerning
> > the never-ending discussion on Fax-to-EDI techniques,
> > and for concisely documenting your rationale as you go.
> >
> > While this topic will not go away for many years, it is
> > good to revisit it frequently, and/or to provide online
> > reference files for the new people.
> >
> > There is compelling evidence that buyers gain as
> > much (or more) as sellers in the secure electronic
> > exchange of business transactions and documents--
> > when implemented properly. Of course, only the
> > (retail or wholesale or government) customer can
> > decide what is "properly" done.
> >
> > But, speaking as both a former government buyer and
> > senior logistics manager in the Defense Department,
> > as well as a commercial consultant, I have found that
> > government and commercial enterprises can experience
> > serious disparities in technical expertise and knowledge
> > of ROI benefits within the customer and/or production
> > divisions, purchasing department, CFO, and IT group.
> >
> > Consequently, it is often difficult to achieve a consensus
> > on the definition of the enterprise problems, or how to
> > implement an integrated solution in this convergent area,
> > because it is usually impossible to get agreement to
> > eliminate the use of paper in the acquisition/legal worlds.
> >
> > So, the cost savings and other benefits from using secure
> > EDI/XML/web forms in some offices can not be
> > transferred to the budgets of the work centers experiencing
> > the new costs. Since managers in the work centers are
> > often direct competitors for perks, bonuses, and promotions,
> > implementing a win-win solution can take a long time.
> >
> > From the outside, the "customer's" organization appears
> > to be really missing the boat. But, it may be a purchasing
> > group manager holding things up because (1) he/she is
> > unwilling (and not forced) to take staffing cuts related to
> > EDI/XML efficiencies, (2) is not exempted from handling
> > and filing paper for all auditable records like orders and
> > invoices, and therefore (3) not able to release the projected
> > savings to the IT department to offset costs of the new
> > EDI/XML products and services.
> >
> > Perhaps the obvious conclusion is that EDI/XML vendors
> > and consultants need to do their homework and understand
> > the customer's business dynamics so they can propose ROI
> > projections and savings to the appropriate decision-makers.
> >
> > Of course, that kind of professional work must be done on
> > a person-to-person basis by competent individuals, and
> > the tasks can go beyond the expertise and training of the
> > typical EDI/XML product sales team.
> >
> > Robert Frank
> > www.opencommerce.com
> >
> > P.S. For those who might be interested, my groups have
> > tried many alternatives (including developing our own
> > translators and gateways) and we find Softshare products
> > and services to currently offer the best life-cycle values
> > for SMEs.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Mick" <jeff.mick.101@s...>
> > To: <
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 4:23 PM
> > Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Fax to EDI/Data
> >
> >
> > > Ahh, Peter. Where to begin?!
> > >
> > > At 03:25 PM 4/28/2004, Peter Olivola wrote:
> > > >If you're retail, this works.
> > >
> > > Yes, it would be hard to argue the Web forms don't work GREAT for
> this
> > > class of buyers.
> > >
> > > >Are we talking retail or are we talking B2B?
> > >
> > > I think you meant, "Are we talking retail or wholesale?" Or maybe
> you
> > > meant, "Are we talking B2C or B2B?" Either way, the question is
> > irrelevant.
> > > > >One of the major problems with this approach is that it tries
> to apply
> > a
> > > >retail solution to a wholesale problem as you so pointedly
> demonstrate.
> > > >
> > > >Peter Olivola
> > > >708 445 0023
> > > >polivola@s...
> > >
> > > I demonstrated nothing of the kind. Instead, I demonstrated that
> Web forms
> > > can allow the six customer benefits listed in my quote below, all
> of which
> > > are commonly of great interest to business buyers, and to a
> lesser degree
> > > to consumer buyers. Please review them one at a time, and if you
> think
> > any
> > > of them are not B2B benefits, state which one and why. Oh, you
> can add
> > > instant credit approval as item 7, impossibility of using an
> invalid part
> > > number as item 8, and instant denial of forbidden materials and
> forbidden
> > > ship-to addresses as items 9 and 10.
> > >
> > > As to your notion of a "retail solution," there is nothing
> inherently
> > > "retail (B2C)" about Web forms. (On the other hand, the cost and
> > complexity
> > > of high-end supply chain solutions renders them inherently B2B.)
> Web
> > > browsers are widely deployed, widely understood, and secure (SSL).
> > Compared
> > > to fax, they have all of the customer benefits cited below.
> Instead of
> > > describing this solution with one word ("retail"), think about the
> > benefits
> > > and shortcomings from the point of view of a non-EDI, non-ebiz
> company
> > > sending in short (few lines) orders.
> > >
> > > Jeff Mick
> > > Sunnyvale, California, USA
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Jeff Mick [mailto:jeff.mick.101@s...]
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 4:50 PM
> > > >To:
> > > >Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Fax to EDI/Data
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I carry no brief for Perry or his software, but let me count a
> few of the
> > > >ways a customer benefits from Web forms ordering, compared to
> faxing-in
> > an
> > > >order:
> > > >
> > > >1. Get price and availability info before committing to a perhaps
> > > >out-of-stock seller
> > > >
> > > >2. Bypass seller's order entry errors (the right stuff in the
> right
> > amounts
> > > >arrives on the first try -- no request for RMA (returned
> materials
> > > >authorization), no return shipping, no reconciling with next
> statement,
> > > >no...)
> > > >
> > > >3. Jump hours or days ahead in the order entry queue for possibly
> > > >short-supply items
> > > >
> > > >4. Instant order confirmation, including ship date (which you
> can save to
> > > >disk with a couple of clicks)
> > > >
> > > >5. Ability to check order status, daily if you wish, or even
> hourly
> > > >
> > > >6. Ability to track orders (if UPS or FedEx or some others)
> > > >
> > > >For a familiar consumer parallel, think about faxing a one-line
> order to
> > > >Amazon instead of using their Web interface: You want a $24.95
> cookbook
> > as
> > > >a gift for your wife's birthday next week, so normal delivery is
> OK.
> > > >Instead you get 100 pairs of $40 earmuffs when they are back in
> stock
> > five
> > > >weeks from now, and they are shipped by next morning service.
> Then you
> > have
> > > >to fax (?) for an RMA, ship the earmuffs back to Amazon, and
> scrutinize
> > > >your credit card bill for a couple of cycles, all this while
> your wife's
> > > >divorce lawyer is hectoring you.
> > > >
> > > >Push-and-pray business processes -- like faxing orders -- are
> yesterday's
> > > >news.
> > > >
> > > >That said, the seller should not assume, just because the
> customer's PC
> > > >came with a Web browser, he has a gut feel for ebiz; he may need
> the
> > > >benefits (partial list above) spelled-out for him. And Web forms
> are
> > > >probably not suitable for more than a few lines per day, but a
> customer
> > who
> > > >is hand writing long orders by fax probably would appreciate a
> pointer to
> > a
> > > >$300 QuickBooks or Peach Tree package which will create an XML
> file to be
> > > >attached to an email or sent to an FTP site. That file can be
> signed
> > and/or
> > > >encrypted with a $60 PGP application.
> > > >
> > > >Jeff Mick
> > > >Sunnyvale, California, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At 01:32 PM 4/28/2004, Tom Brandt wrote:
> > > > >Maybe I'm missing something, but Perry's proposal was from the
> > customer's
> > > > >perspective, not the vendor's.
> > > > >
> > > > >At 04:08 PM 4/28/2004, Peter Olivola wrote:
> > > > > >I don't think anyone is buying this "solution" any more,
> Perry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Why would a customer increase their effort, i.e., generate
> an order
> > out
> > > >of
> > > > > >their own system, print it and then rekey it into a web form
> when
> > they
> > > >can
> > > > > >take the printed version, stick it in a fax machine and push
> one
> > button?
> > > > > >This may be a great idea on the vendor end, but the customer
> doesn't
> > see
> > > >any
> > > > > >benefit. You remember the customer, don't you, Perry? You
> remember
> > that
> > > > > >most customers have vendor options, don't you, Perry?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Vendor centric models don't solve the problems of a customer
> centric
> > > >world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Peter Olivola
> > > > > >708 445 0023
> > > > > >polivola@s...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Perry Short [mailto:perry.short@s...]
> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:27 PM
> > > > > >To: 'Jeff Mick';
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Fax to EDI/Data
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Since Web forms has been mentioned twice so far here are the
> > advantages,
> > > > > >which depending on your circumstances, may be a solution for
> you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Web EDI Forms Solution
> > > > > >
> > > > > >No more orders to fax or paper invoices to re-key in your
> system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You automate business transactions on your end with your non-
> EDI
> > > >suppliers
> > > > > >that have Internet access.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Your current ordering system sends the outbound order to the
> Web
> > forms
> > > > > >system for the supplier to retrieve.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >An email is automatically sent to notify your supplier that
> an order
> > is
> > > > > >waiting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Your supplier then logs onto your dedicated website to view
> or print
> > the
> > > > > >order.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >When the order is viewed or printed, an acknowledgement is
> > automatically
> > > > > >generated so you know the supplier received the order.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >When the supplier manually enters their invoice information
> in the
> > Web
> > > >form,
> > > > > >the invoice is automatically translated into a format for EDI
> > translation
> > > > > >when the supplier completes and "sends" the form.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Although this solution still requires a manual process for
> the
> > non-EDI
> > > > > >supplier, the information keyed into the Web form is fully
> integrated
> > > >with
> > > > > >your EDI/B2B Integration solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >It can be used for all other business documents with your
> suppliers,
> > not
> > > > > >just purchase orders and invoices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Benefits include the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >One time reasonable cost solution (no on-going monthly vendor
> > charges)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >No cost to your suppliers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Non-invasive to your suppliers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >No software installation for your suppliers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >No software corporate or client license fees for anyone
> > > > > >
> > > > > >No on-going maintenance agreement (typically 20%) annually
> on the
> > > >software
> > > > > >license
> > > > > >
> > > > > >No VAN cost for you or your suppliers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >No additional transaction cost whether use Van, Internet, or
> whatever
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And yes, SterlingLink provides this solution. Please
> contact me or
> > visit
> > > > > >our Website to learn more.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >Tom Brandt
> > > > >Northtech Systems, Inc.
> > > > >130 S. 1st Street, Suite 220
> > > > >Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1343
> > > > >http://www.northtech.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .
> > > Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject
> prefix:
> > <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
> > > Access the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
|
|
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
