It’s all for nothing if you don’t have freedom.
Categories: Articles, EDI General, training
Written By: Craig Dunham
One of the things you may have noticed about Me when I blog, is that I tend to find a quote or a saying or a song lyric or a … something … that makes sense and drives My thinking. The title of this blog comes from the 1995 film by (and starring) Mel Gibson called “BRAVEHEART“. For those that don’t know, it’s the story about fighting for freedom in Scotland in the … 1500s? One of the more “famous” quotes is when Mel Gibson yells out something about how they may kill them (the Scots) but they’ll never take their freedom!
Freedom, however, in something as strict and regimented as EDI may seem like a far fetched notion, but it’s there. Sure, we’ve got those lovely guides - those HUGE books - of standards and “rules” for the data we’re sending - depending on the document - that tell us what we can send and how it should be formatted and all the rest. Those standards tell us we should send this information in this loop in this segment in this element and it should be between 2 and 30 characters in length.
But in that rigidity - in that structure - there’s still some freedom. Just look at the last sentence in the above paragraph - we’re given some freedom in the data - that it can be between 2 and 30 characters. So there’s some freedom right there. Then there’s is such a plethora of data and information we can include - information and data that just may not seem like it belongs in the document we’re using. But we can include it.
We can even have some freedom in what we use to separate our data - whether an element seperator, a segment terminator or whatever. We have a choice of characters we can use and put into the data flow to show where this piece of data ends and the next begins.
Then, of course, we have a wonderful MSG segment - in which we can include all sorts of “free form” data that can be anything we want to include. Again, more freedom. More abilities and places to put information that doesn’t “fit” any one of the stricter and defined elements and segments of the document. We can send anything - and I mean ANYTHING - in an MSG segment that may be of use to us (as the sender) or to them (our trading partner - the receiver)… It could be a “please pack in pretty pink boxes” or “have a happy Friday” or “this information is solely for the use of the receiver” or … well, you get the idea.
And that freedom is an important part of EDI. Just as freedom is an important part of nearly every aspect of our lives - from where we live, what we do for a living, who we love, what we drive, what we wear and so on. However, there are times that those freedoms can be curtailed.
Maybe your employer enforces a dress code - you can only wear dark colored slacks, white shirts and simple, mono-chromatic ties. You can’t have facial hair. You have to wear black shoes. You can’t have any personal stuff on your desktop. Shades of “9 To 5” - an 80’s-era gem of a movie with Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton… Where the workers rebel against their boss and take control of the division and suddenly life is good and it’s a better place to work! Ties back into that freedom that William Wallace (Gibson’s character in “Braveheart“) wanted so desperately for his fellow Scots.
These attempts at conformity can truly alter - and not always for the best - the way that the job can function. If, for example, that MSG segment wasn’t allowed in EDI - and if it was confining and restrictive - we wouldn’t be able to send some of the information to our trading partners that ARE important. For example - we request that many of our vendors apply pricing stickers to our products. And we request a certain format and that they include certain information - such as our internal CLASS of the item - on that price tag. And we use a MSG segment to get that information across to them. We send, in the PO Item loop a MSG segment with that class number as the data - and we even use another MSG segment to let them (our trading partners) what that MSG segment contains - the data needed for “TICKET ID”.
Sure, I could probably find something in the PO1 line item that I could use to get that data transmitted from My side to theirs, but it’s just … easier … to use the MSG segments, instead. Maybe there’s not a perfect fit in the existing standards that will “match” up to our CLASS code. There may be similar things - but maybe I’d rather have the freedom to use that element or data code later on. Maybe I’ll suddenly have to start sending some other piece of data that the “similar” element was originally intended for. Where’s the freedom in that?
By putting forward too many restrictions - too many rules - too many standards - you limit what you’re able to do. You limit what can be done with the data or what you’re sending. You limit your ability to effectively communicate - and to effectively work - and to effectively get your ideas and points across. What if I wasn’t able to use movie quotes and song lyrics in My thought process? You’d not be reading this blog - or - worse yet - it would be boring, dry and as exciting as a textbook on “Analyzing Algorithms about Data Trends in Modern Day Accounting” or something just as … exciting.
Some people have claimed that XML is the “NEW FUTURE” for EDI and that we don’t need standards and we don’t need rules and governing … committees … to tell us what we can and can’t send and how to format it. They see EDI standards as … constricting … and they can’t see the freedom that is allowed them.
There is freedom all around us in EDI. The trick is to find it and take it.
“It’s all for nothing if you don’t have freedom!”
Author: Craig Dunham - EDI Coordinator Read more about Craig here: http://editalk.com/contributors/
August 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
But keep those MSG’s to minimum, i’m paying per kc! But seriously, I have seen some crazy notices in the MSG seg’s. Its just a waste of money putting your “terms” every damm time, just have a link to your website with the terms.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:57 am
My experience has been both as a hub and as a spoke, but mainly from the manufacturers end. My mission is to provide AUTOMATIC TRANSACTION PROCESSING ACROSS APPLICATION INTERFACES using published standards, and in compliance with industry guidelines.
Well, you hit one of my pet peeves, so please bear with me while I rant a bit (no offense intended).
The “freedom” your article describes suggests acceptance of the use of generic segments such as MSG to carry meaningful or even “required” information, which has been deprecated by DISA for what I consider to be good reason. When each T.Partner has their own way of doing things, then custom map code (or a customized map) is needed which increases cost and risk. Yes we need to do some of this, but not needlessly.
The whole point of EDI is to reduce or eliminate exceptional processing, ideally building a single seamless system connecting manufacturers, service providers (transport, finance, etc), distributors and retailers. The efficiencies in cost and time will benefit all, including the end consumer. Yeah, I’m dreaming, right?
Wrong! If you need those codes in your transactions, I submit that in the past 20 (30 yet?) years there has been included in the ANSI X12 standards the appropriate segment and qualifiers for them, and VICS or UCI or some other retail-oriented industry group has recommended such in their guidelines. How hard have you looked to find the suggested mapping? When you find it, will recommend same to your TPs? Will you update your internal preferred mapping guidelines?
I take my freedom with my friends and family, but do my best at work to develop excellent technical tools to make business happen, with a minimum of cost and minimum risk of error. This often means following strict guidelines and best practices, which restrict “freedom”.
That’s just my view on the subject.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Jeff and John - very good points….
Jeff, you must remember, however, that each industry has different needs and uses for some of the processing - i.e. hospitals & medical industry is different from retail which is different from auto mfgs. which is different from universities which is different from funding/loans and banking and …
In reference to your question - if I find the correct segment, element and information qualifier to send the proper information across on the EDI document, I will both update My internal guidelines and alert all of My TPs to the changes and let them know - in advance - of the proposed changes, so that they can modify their own internal docs.
And John, we all pay by the KC… Some of those MSG segments - such as sending the conditions of the PO (terms, whatever) are often times a requirement of the legal department that doesn’t care what the cost is - as long as it eliminates the potential costs later from lawsuits!
One final thought - just because “The whole point of EDI is to reduce or eliminate exceptional processing, ideally building a single seamless system connecting manufacturers, service providers (transport, finance, etc), distributors and retailers. The efficiencies in cost and time will benefit all, including the end consumer” - this doesn’t mean that there cannot be some variations (as needed) for industry standards and TP specific needs within a single document. There are some apsects of the 850 PO that maybe the medical crowd needs, but maybe isn’t so important to the retailers - or vice-versa. It we wanted one “seamless system” to connect, then we’d all have to use the same format - the same document - so that if I’m buying from Baxter Medical Supply (as a retailer) and General Hospital is buying from Baxter Medical Supply (as a health care provider), our POs would be identical to make Baxter’s processing simpler. But then the onus of the complexity falls onto General Hospital and ABC Retailer to make it easy for Baxter. Basically, somebody has to lose somewhere….
August 14th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Quoting Braveheart is like a red rag to a bull to me. I have got to respond.
I am going to go on a bit about history here, but bear with me. I will come back to EDI at the end.
For the average Joe, the freedom Wallace (and Mel Gibson) was fighting for was to be lorded over by a Scotsman (Bruce) rather than an Englishman (Edward). In both cases Joe remained a peasant/serf with no right to land ownership, an obligation to pay taxes (without representation) and with little hope of a evenly applied “rule of law”. Is the race of the King significant?
The attempts by various English Kings of this period (1200-1350 ?) to acquire Scotland was a MAJOR historical cock up that delayed the creation of a unified nation (Britain) by hundreds of years. For all the historical inaccuracies of the Braveheart film, one point it did correctly portray was that the Scottish ruling elite owned significant landholdings in England.
Inter-marriage and cross-cultural exchanges was bringing both countries together. If things had been left alone and there hadn’t been the many wars, unification might have happened anyway by joint inheritance. This eventually happened in 1603 when Elizabeth I of England was succeeded by James VI of Scotland (her fathers, sisters, great-grandson - or first cousin, twice removed - I think!)
Even then, things were not settled. The last big rebellion happened in 1745 when “Bonnie Prince Charlie” was defeated at the battle of Colloden. This event holds an emotional place in the culture of Scots and is seen by many as the “death of nationhood”. However in this battle there were more Scots fighting on the “English” side than English. The alternative view is that this event marks the end of “tribalism” on this island and the rise of the modern Nation State.
Back to EDI.
From this perspective the freedom to choose a format looks like a freedom to choose to be enslaved by a ruling elite.
The freedom to depart from the standard is the freedom to not to be bothered with the law - that is for little people (or suppliers).
The freedom to reject the established standards and formats completely and develop your own is like sailing off to the New World in hope of a better life. You know it is not going to be a bed of roses but you think it is the future.
So how do we avoid repeating the mistakes of history? I think it is important understand what is important and makes a difference to our lives.
A N other encoding format is no better than one we already support. The new one might be easier to utilise but is requires effort to get to there from here. Using what we have is easier.
A single dominating format that was accepted by all, would produce future savings and improvements. This would be disruptive to the status quo. So to succeed it would need additional benefits beyond simple convergence, or we are in for a long wait.