|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Fax to EDI/Data
Yo, August,
Yes, your trading partner (TP) might have to do double entry, but that
second entry has to be done somewhere in the process, and there are
benefits to the TP for doing it himself, rather than have you do it. It is
very likely that the benefits to him of doing it outweigh the costs of him
doing it.
I assume the TP is intelligent and rational, and there are no non-economic
factors (like him revealing his dumbosity to his boss if he tosses out his
brand new, much touted auto faxing solution). So he is just uninformed.
First thing to tell him is, no matter what faxing system the TP has now,
his cost is sunk, that is, the money is gone (except for perhaps a service
contract). Similarly, the zero cost of the Web browser is sunk. So his
issue is (should be) the cost of using one or the other from now on, not
acquiring one or the other.
Then, he should consider the list of 10 benefits to him, compared to
faxing. And you might want to add number 11, avoiding restocking fees (20%
is common) on errors due to faxing. Those errors would include errors
resulting from your good faith efforts to translate his faxes to
machine-readable form.
Those two are a compelling argument, I think. He may prefer auto faxing if
he looks only at the cost of getting his order out the door, but that is an
intermediate step, not the goal. The goal is getting the right material in
the right quantities on time, which requires all of the benefits in the 10
(11?) item benefit list.
Jeff Mick
Sunnyvale, California, USA
At 12:56 PM 5/1/2004, augiesurf wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>Thanks for the great comments. I think we're generally in
>agreement. One point I'd like to get clarification on...when a
>sender has an auto faxing solution, how can they be convinced to use
>web forms? The way I see it...they would have to do double entry,
>once into their local system (which generated the auto fax) and then
>again into a web form. Am I missing something?
>
>August
>
>--- In Jeff Mick <jeff.mick.101@s...> wrote:
> > Remarks are interleaved below.
> >
> > [sniperoo]
> >
> > >My conclusion: fax to data technology is not what we want it to
>be;
> >
> > And that isn't going to change in my lifetime because of non-
>standard
> > forms, non-standard typefaces, and handwriting. Of course, the non-
>standard
> > forms issue could be addressed by the sender enclosing his data
>elements
> > between XML tags. :-)
> >
> > >webforms are great, if the sender is willing to use;
> >
> > Bingo! They are great for both sides, though the person on the Web
>browser
> > may be less sophisticated in e-commerce, so need to have the
>business
> > benefits to him pointed out. (The person who spent the bucks
>putting up a
> > Web server is almost by definition well-versed in e-commerce.)
> >
> > >senders who have a system that can send a fax automatically are
>happy and
> > >will not
> > >change...so get used to it;
> >
> > Not so. Some of them just haven't considered the benefits *to them*
>of Web
> > forms.
> >
> > >however, not all fax senders have an automatic system, as some
>still
> > >sneaker/sandlenet the faxes, so there
> > >is opportunity there;
> >
> > Definitely an opportunity there, too.
> >
> > >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
> >
> > While I agree with that in principle, I would sell it as a positive
>(see my
> > list of 10 benefits) rather than a negative (e.g., $40 processing
>fee per
> > fax beginning July 1).
> >
> > Depending on the economics, it might be better to let one's
>competitors
> > have the trading partners which insist on faxing. Those economics
>should
> > include the real cost of straightening out the faxed orders which
>result in
> > returned materials hassles and overstocks due to cancellations by
>fax. A
> > real example of such an overstock: A distributor which re-orders
>within
> > seconds because a faxed order has cleaned out their stock received
>the new
> > stock days before the material sold to the faxing customer was
>returned for
> > credit due to a misreading of his fax three or four weeks earlier.
>(If
> > everybody travels by horse and buggy, or alternatively by Ferrari,
>there
> > are far few read-ender accidents on the info superhighway than when
>there
> > is an speed mismatch of several orders of magnitude.)
> >
> > Jeff Mick
> > Sunnyvale, California, USA
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
