I was reading The Inovis Blog - yes, I do read other things! - but Meg Suggs (Inovis) talked about how McDonalds (over in Europe!) is “going green” with their fleet of delivery trucks. I commented (of course!) on how it would be great if the US and our automakers could be as forward thinking about the acceptance of alternative fuels and energy sources (such as bio-diesel).

My own car is a Chrysler PT Cruiser. Chrysler sells the PT Cruiser over in Europe, and offered (at least at one point) electric versions of the PT, as well as a CRD powered PT Cruiser. CRD is the acronym for COMMON RAIL DIESEL and it actually is a very viable diesel motor - with great performance and low emissions - not anything like the diesels we all may remember from the 80s…. Jeep even offers the CRD engine in their “Liberty” truck-ette in the US. But I digress from My original thought and point.

Reading that post (at Inovis) and My comment on same made Me think of how much better and easier (!) EDI could be if more hubs and suppliers - and even EDI providers - were to be more open and accepting to other ways of thinking.. How much more we could all get done.

As a hub (i.e. a retailer that starts the EDI process), I have great and tremendous power over My suppliers.. Geez, now “He-Man: Master of the Universe” is running around My brain with “by the power of Grayskull… I HAVE THE POWER!!!!” as he turns from meek and mild Prince “what’s-his-name” into He-Man - Master of the Universe.. and yes, I’m digressing again. But still, as the retailer, I do “have the power” to control the way that EDI works. I’m the one that specifies what information is important to Me and what information I’m going to send and how I’m going to send it and you can either accept it or not. But if not, then you’re probably going to be dropped off of our “active vendor” rolls.

But then it makes Me think - even more - about how that power can be used - or abused - depending on how willing I am (as the hub) to force the issues. We’ve all heard the horror stories of this hub or that supplier and how they make EDI painful..

In our product mix, we have some of the big-big heavy hitters and also some small little mom-n-pop kinds of suppliers.. If you read My other blog about “How Do You EDI” - I mention about a supplier that provides us with one product, but it’s the best damn version of that product on the market, you understand what I mean about mon-n-pop suppliers. But still.. I have to be considerate of all of My vendors and suppliers - of all of My trading partners. I have to be flexible in what I will and will not send, and in what I will and will not accept in a return document.

We buy a lot from one of the biggest names in Camping Goods that you can know - they do it all - from coolers to lanterns to sleeping bags to those folding chairs and then even more.. When we first implemented our EDI ASN, I was asked by their EDI mapper if they could send additional information in the ASN - information that our spec didn’t call for; hell it didn’t even mention it. Like the PID segment. The reason? because he sends that segment to other hubs/retailers and was looking to keep as few maps around as possible. This would be a classic example of the KISS philosophy I mentioned previously. And it’s something I’m quite OK with.

It’s the same thing that many of My trading partners have to deal with when they receive My 850 PO - in that I send along information that they may never use in their own system. For example, in the PO1 segment, I send along our SKU (important for the return ASN and for pre-ticketing), but I also send the product UPC, the vendor style number, a generic item description, case pack information, item sizes, etc.. Some of the vendors fill the order completely on the UPC. Others use their style number. Others use the size and the style.. So there are different needs out there.

But the point is - we only use one document map for our outbound PO and for the inbound ASN. And the same will hold true for our inbound 810 Invoice (once completed). As EDI trading partners, we’ve come to an agreement of what will work best and we’re working together and thinking together with a common goal - transmitting information back and forth without major headaches. We’ve both made changes on each side of the EDI equation to help out the other partner to implement the data. We’ve accepted alternatives to our own documents and changed what we needed to change in order to use those alternative documents. Much like we could (as a people and as a country) make changes to accommodate those alternative fuels..

There are, as I said, a couple of the big “heavy hitters” in the supply chain that hold to the credo of “my way or the highway” type of thinking. You - if you want to trade documents with them - must comply to their way of thinking. There is NO deviation. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. We are BORG.. oh, wait.. more nonsense.. But still. Many of you may have had to have dealt with these hubs and suppliers - the EDI “trading partners” that will not accept anything but total compliance with their specs. No deviation from their ways of doing business and doing EDI. You cannot mix styles on an order. You cannot send extra data. You must send via AS2. And on and on and on and ..

These heavy hitters are the stumbling blocks and the hurdles to making this all easy and painless. They’re the ones that don’t want to accept an alternative way of thinking. They don’t want to make accommodations to a different way of thinking. They’re the villains of this piece, much like some of the automakers and oil companies are the villains in the alternative energy ways of thinking. They only want what they know and they only want the way they do it and there will be no deviation. There will be no alternatives. It’s Pink Floyd and “The Wall“.. It’s “Us or Them“..

In the cavern of arcane and sometimes useless (and other times useful - like in a great game of Trivial Pursuit!), another thought is bouncing around off of the lobes and valleys and bumps of My brain - “Can’t we all just get along?”