BIRT Interactive Viewer(IV) is an end user tool that enables you to analyze and modify BIRT reports on the web using just your browser. It is implemented as a viewing service of BIRT iServer and can be turned on for all the reports or for each report. This article explores different ways this can be achieved.
You can enable IV for an individual report by selecting “Enable Interactivity” option when you launch Actuate BIRT Viewer as shown in the screen shot below:
There might be cases where you may want to skip though the above step and enable interactivity for all the reports by default when they are launched. This can be achieved by setting the configuration variable “AutoEnableIV” to true defined in file “[Install Dir]iServerservletcontaineriportalWEB-INFiv_config.xml”. This configuration variable is defined for each role and so you will find multiple matching entries . Choose the role for which you want to apply this setting. Role “All” would enable this for all the users. This change requires a restart of BIRT iServer.
If you just want a specific report to open with IV enabled, and don’t want to use the global approach described above, then you can add the following code to the individual report design in onContentUpdate handler method:
if (!this.getViewer().isInteractive())
this.getViewer().enableIV();
Actuate JSAPI (AJAX-based JavaScript library) is another popular way of embedding BIRT reports within your composite web application and offers APIs to enable or disable interactivity. To enable it by default, use enableIV() API as a callback to submit() function call as follows (Download complete source code):
viewer.submit(function(v){
v.enableIV();
});
Learn more about Interactive Viewing or download BIRT iServer with Interactive Viewer for a 45 days free trial from hereand experience its rich internet application platform.
-
Enable Interactivity in Your BIRT Viewer
-
Top 5 Tips for Successfully Deploying ERP/B2B Integration Projects
Today’s ERP environments are at the centre of many enterprise IT infrastructures, from managing employee or customer related information through to delivering information required to run complex production systems. Many people often regard an ERP system as being internally focused, however without reliable connections to outside trading partners, for example banks, suppliers or logistics partners, it can be very difficult to run an ERP system at 100% operational efficiency.
In 2009 GXS sponsored a research study that showed that on average 34% of data entering an ERP system came from outside the enterprise. Now considering that many CIOs focus on the internal infrastructure to support an ERP platform, very little effort seems to be applied to ensuring that externally sourced information can just as easily enter the ERP platform. If you have unreliable connectivity between your ERP platform and external trading partners and a network outage occurs then potentially a third of information feeding your ERP system will be lost. This could in turn lead to downstream business or production systems not receiving information from the ERP system. So the importance of external connectivity to trading partners should not be under estimated.
So how do you go about connecting ERP and B2B systems together?, what should you prioritise first?, what do you need to take into consideration when trying to connect trading partners located in different parts of the world. (In my previous blog I started to discuss the considerations for onboarding trading partners in an emerging market). The remainder of this blog will discuss some of the key things to consider when embarking on an ERP/B2B integration project.
- Make sure you have the correct resources in place – One of the challenges with running an ERP/B2B integration project is ensuring that you have the correct resources available to design, implement and manage the integrated platform from beginning to end. When undertaking such a project you need to find out if you have any internal skills to undertake the integration work itself, you will need a project manager who can reach out to all users, both internal and external, so that their B2B connections can be tested and any document maps that are required can be created. Finally you will need to ensure that you have a support function that can resolve any issues and help to manage the integrated platform on a day to day basis. If you do not have the resources or you find that B2B/EDI resources are being redeployed on other projects (leaving your B2B platform exposed) then it could be an opportunity to outsource the integrated platform to an outside vendor as a way to overcome many of these issues.
- Decide on the options for integrating between ERP and B2B systems – When integrating between ERP and B2B systems there are a number of communication and document exchange related standards that need to be reviewed. For example in the case of SAP, should users connect via SAP ALE, via VPN or across a secure internet connection, should IDOCs be transmitted across AS2 or SFTP? What about integrating via web services?, do you need to support SAP PI based integration? How do you know when your ERP documents have been processed across the integration platform?, will you need status alerts to be implemented to provide automatic notification of when documents have been successfully converted from one format into another?
- Make sure your ERP/B2B integration platform is highly available – Ensuring that your trading partners can connect and send information to your integration platform is crucial to the smooth operation of your ERP system. If you lose B2B connectivity for some reason and external information from trading partners is prevented from reaching your ERP system then there is a chance that this could impact other back office systems and downstream production processes. Your external trading partners should ideally be connected to your ERP system across a highly available B2B integration platform. Choosing the right B2B vendor to work with can make or break the success of deploying an ERP/B2B integration platform.
- Check the quality of externally sourced information – As highlighted earlier in this blog entry, a high proportion of data entering your ERP system comes from outside the enterprise. What happens if a supplier sends through information that has an incorrect address or part number included? The document would have to be intercepted before it enters your ERP system, it would need to be reworked to correct the information and then resubmitted in the queue to get processed by the ERP application. By checking the quality of the information before it enters your ERP platform will allow you to minimise any downtime caused by having to rework data. Given that ERP systems are at the heart of many companies it is important to try and implement what can best be described as an ERP firewall around your ERP applications. This firewall would continuously monitor all inbound business documents and identify any documents that do not contain a complete or correct set of data before entering your ERP system.
- Provide a fully scalable integration platform – When designing an integrated ERP/B2B platform it is important to plan for future expansion or growth of the platform. For example your company could acquire a business running legacy SAP or Oracle applications, you may have a need to support a different ERP module or different types of ERP documents. You also need to ensure that the platform is scalable and that you can deploy the platform across any business unit or manufacturing plant located anywhere in the world. The easiest way to achieve this would be to build your integrated platform in a cloud based environment. This helps with the way in which users get access to the platform, it helps to minimise time spent integrating to new ERP modules and most importantly of all, integration in the cloud shields the users from the complexities of trying to develop the integration platform themselves.
Now having read these tips you might be thinking, where do I start? There is a high chance that you may not have the internal integration expertise to undertake such an integration project or that your existing IT and support infrastructure is unable to support such an integration project. More importantly of all you need to maintain continuity of your existing IT projects, production facilities and customer service environments.
The simplest solution to address these concerns would be to place the integration project in a cloud based environment. Trading Grid is the world’s largest integration cloud platform and we have undertaken many such integration projects for hundreds of companies across different industry sectors around the world. See how OpenText can help move your ERP/B2B integration project to the cloud.
-
5 Considerations When Choosing between AS2 and FTP
AS2 and FTP are the most popular Internet Protocols used for B2B communications, but which is better for your community of business partners?
What are the five critical factors you should consider when selecting between AS2 and FTP?
- Encryption
Each IP communications protocol takes a different approach to securing information (or not securing it at all). Some protocols encrypt the transport layer while others secure the payload (the actual data).- FTP by itself does not address security. But you can achieve a secure connection by using security mechanisms such as Virtual Private Network (VPN) or leveraging a related protocol that uses SSL (FTPS) or SSH (SFTP). This combination encrypts the entire communications channel to protect the data. In other words, the transport is secured, but not the payload. When combining additional security with FTP however, it will influence the cost and interoperability.
- AS2 focuses on encrypting the data rather than the transport channel, providing end-to-end to ensure security. Optionally, with AS2 you can encrypt the channel with SSL as well on top of the payload encryption. AS2 also provides a hashing process to ensure that a file was not tampered with during delivery.
- Non-repudiation
Another facet of security to consider is non-repudiation. Repudiation refers to the ability to confirm that a document was actually sent by the claimed sender.- FTP, FTPS and SFTP do not address non-repudiation.
- AS2 uses digital certificates to ensure that documents are delivered only to the intended recipient. The certificates also ensure that the messages are secured in transit and that the sender can be verified. You must manage the certificates used by your company and by your trading partners yourself. Management tasks include generating certificates, tracking certificates used by your trading partners and processing expired or revoked certificates.
- Message Management
When doing B2B, you need a standard way to know whether messages got where they were going and whether they were successfully decrypted and verified.- FTP does not fully address message management. FTP will send a confirmation of the number of bytes transferred after sending a document. However, FTP provides no indication that the message was successfully processed.
- The AS2 standard provides a status message called the “Message Disposition Notification” (MDN). Because AS2 places a message in an envelope to enable it to be transmitted over the internet, you need to know that the message was successfully extracted from that envelope. After transmission of a message AS2 sends an MDN indicating whether the document was successfully or unsuccessfully extracted from the envelope.
- Ease of Use and Interoperability
Naturally, you will want to choose a protocol that enables you to connect easily to your trading partners.- VPNs are a very popular technology for securing Internet-based communications within the enterprise. However, the use of FTP over a VPN for communications between two different companies can introduce interoperability issues. Chances are high that your business partners might be using VPN technology from a different vendor. You must ensure that your VPN software is compatible and are configured to work with the VPN of your business partner. Enhanced FTP protocols such as FTPS and SFTP software requires less configuration. However, mixing FTPS and SFTP software from different vendors often creates interoperability challenges.
- The AS2 standard was designed specifically for B2B e-commerce transactions over the internet. AS2 enjoys huge adoption and provides built-in business-grade transaction management. AS2 is backed by the Drummond Group, an organization which performs certification testing on all vendor software to verify its interoperability with products from other vendors. Thus, you are guaranteed that if you buy any two products from the list of Drummond-certified products that they will work together well.
- Cost
- The biggest advantage of FTP is that it is ubiquitous. FTP was the first robust, reliable file transfer protocol. The setup is nearly instant if you know the name of the server you need to reach and it has low administrative overhead, as long as you are using very basic file transfer. But, if you want to add message management, security and other required B2B features, the overhead increases.
- AS2 requires specialized software, technical expertise and certificate administration, which leads to higher processing overhead. Some of these costs can be offset by working with a service provider. You can offload most of the management hassle of running an AS2 solution—and can also reduce your operating costs.
- Encryption
-
Do you want to win with the Advance Ship Notice (ASN)? Then follow these ten best practices!
The Advance Ship Notice (ASN) continues to get a bad rap within the B2B community. I agree that is a difficult document to implement, but largely because it is responsible for carrying some of the most critical event-based supply chain data. Buying organizations want and need to know all the specifics about product movement so they can prepare to receive, process and speed items to the selling floor as efficiently as possible.
Next week I will be attending the Council for Supply Chain Management Professionals’ Annual Global Conference. While there, I have the privilege of co-presenting with Genesco (retail owner of brands including Journeys, Johnston & Murphy, Lids and others) and PUMA in a session that will highlight their real life case study focusing on how the ASN improves distribution effiiciency. It will be an exciting talk that navigates the order-to-cash story while demonstrating to the audience how much longer it can take to move product through the supply chain when manual processes and a lack of EDI/B2B integration are employed.
In honor of the presentation, I thought I would take this opportunity to drag out my perennial soap box and wax eloquent (well, maybe) about some key best practices that can really help ensure a successful ASN implementation:
- The information must arrive before the merchandise. This may seem obvious, but many suppliers in close proximity to retailer distribution centers (DCs) are challenged with the timeliness of Advance Ship Notices (ASNs). Suppliers and retailers must not put ASNs into a batch-driven EDI process. Suppliers must send ASNs immediately upon shipment departure and retailers must process them just as quickly. Often, suppliers are tempted to create the ASN and invoice documents simultaneously. However, invoices may often be held for overnight batch delivery to customers which is not appropriate for ASNs. Retailers need to segregate the process of translating and integrating ASNs from other B2B transactions so that receiving processes are not compromised in the warehouse or DC.
- Remember that each trading partner is different. Suppliers must read each buyer’s EDI implementation guidelines and carrier routing guides closely. Also keep in mind that standards are flexible. Just because two retailers are using the same X12 or VICS 856 EDI guideline does not mean they will implement the ASN in the same way. Carefully review each customer’s required ASN data structures, which may vary depending upon the packaging and distribution process. For items shipped as standard packs (each logistical unit is a single item), suppliers first identify the item in the ASN then provide a list of serialized containers. For items sent in a pick-and-pack structure (each logistical unit contains a mixture of items), suppliers will need to first identify the serialized container then list the items within. Retailers should provide clear direction regarding the various packing and document structures they require with a sample for each, including scenarios such as ship to DC/mark for stores, direct to store, direct to consumer, no pack, etc.
- Don’t underestimate the importance of barcode label quality and placement. Many retailers require serialized GS1 128 barcode labels on all cartons, pallets and other logistical units. During receiving, the barcode labels are read by fixed readers on automated conveyors systems in the DC or warehouse. As a result, the labels must be affixed on the correct side of the package observing the “quiet zones” established by the retailer. Review the GS1 general specifications for barcode labels, which is very helpful for proper implementation. Retailers need to ensure they follow the GS1 general specifications and detail their unique requirements clearly. For suppliers applying barcode labels to individual saleable units, validate that the correct barcode is placed on the correct unit. It will not be obvious until it arrives at the store that the barcode is wrong. Suppliers need to implement quality assurance program for barcode labels with contract manufacturers, as well as verification processes for barcode quality on all cartons and other shipping containers.
- 100% data accuracy is a must! Data accuracy starts long before product is packaged in the warehouse. Trading partners should start by synchronizing item information such as style, color, size, GTIN, packaging dimensions and pricing before the purchase order is exchanged. If both suppliers and retailers share the same accurate master data then discrepancies can be avoided throughout the supply chain. Ensure that the unit of measure on the purchase order matches the unit of measure on the ASN. The buyer in the merchandising department and the receiving clerk at the warehouse may not communicate regularly. They are both relying on the documentation for accuracy based upon the agreements made during the purchasing process.
- Ensure all required segments and data elements are populated. Fields such as the PRO number, bill of lading (BOL) and carrier identifier are critical components of the ASN. Gathering all the data for an ASN in a timely manner can be challenging. Suppliers are not likely to get the BOL until the carrier is on premise, perhaps not even until after the shipment is loaded and ready for transport. Regulatory requirements are increasing the challenges with ASNs as well. For example, for imported product, Importer Security Filing (ISF) legislation requires the importer of record to submit 10 data elements regarding the parties involved in packing and shipping U.S. Customs at least 48 hours in advance of a ship leaving its point of departure.
- Don’t try to implement every trading partner at the same time. Start with a pilot program. Identify problems with ASNs then take corrective actions. Once the process is flowing smoothly with a few partners then pursue additional expansion of the initiative. Retailers may find challenges with particular product categories or distribution flow processes. Suppliers must remember that not all retailers may be ready to receive ASNs for all product lines or order management scenarios.
- Approach the ASN project holistically. Although the actual ASN document is usually supported by the technology group, it is driven by business processes. Retailers should not embark on a full-scale ASN initiative until they have prepared their distribution teams to automate the processes of receiving and reconciling the information. While a phased approach may help to manage time and cost objectives, there is little value in having suppliers invest in the complexities of implementing the ASN when the information cannot be capitalized on at the DC and downstream distribution points. Suppliers must ensure that business personnel in the shipping, logistics and customer service organizations are involved for success. Suppliers cannot create ASNs with a lot of static or hard-coded data. The ASN is an event-driven document that requires information from each separate shipping cycle to be accurate. Suppliers should considering optimizing their distribution process to support ASNs for every customer, and then turning generation of the ASN document on or off for each retailer as their receiving capabilities dictate.
- Communication is critical! Trading partners should establish relationships with key personnel across each other’s organization. These relationships will expand beyond traditional contacts in merchandising. Effective relationships will enable staff to ask questions and handle issues uncovered during testing. A proactive and thorough approach to communication will prevent errors in the distribution processes that can lead to merchandise delays, reconciliation issues, and invoice deductions. Carrier relationships are important as well. Carriers control not only the transport of the goods, but the timing of receipt at the buyer’s location, making them a critical part of the ASN process. Many suppliers work with carriers that are selected by the retailer, so a means for ongoing 3-way communication should be instituted wherever possible.
- Plan, plan, plan. No company should embark on an ASN initiative without creating a plan that includes an overall strategy and a list of phased, tactical objectives. While the ASN is often referred to in EDI circles as the most difficult document to implement, it is the underlying processes that require thoughtful and thorough analysis. The most accurate ASN comes from a well-detailed plan. Suppliers need to consider manufacturing, picking, packing, and distribution components. Retailers must contemplate changes to receiving at all locations, as well as data integration, requirements documentation, and testing and compliance scenarios.
- Test, test, test. An effective planning process would be incomplete without taking into account the various obscure use cases that will likely occur as soon as a production implementation gets under way. Retailers should offer the ability to send test ship notices for all packing and distribution scenarios. Suppliers need to ASNs with sample data populated to share with retailers. The testing process will uncover both data and process-related problems that will potentially become compliance violations (aka chargebacks).
When the right amount of planning, testing and communication are paired with following best practices and all documented guidelines, a high degree of accuracy with a majority of trading partners is possible. This creates a winning combination, a successful ASN rollout, and long-lasting strategic trading partnerships!
-
AS2 and Internet EDI – Nine Years Later
On September 9th, 2002 Walmart announced its intention to shift to a new Internet-based EDI system using technology from a small software company called iSoft. I like to refer to this event as the “shot heard ’round the world” in the EDI industry, because it dramatically changed the landscape for B2B communications. Walmart’s announcement had catastrophic impacts to the group of EDI VAN providers that had been the primary channel for B2B transactions for decades. The new Internet EDI technology, AS2 short for Applicability Statement 2, would enable corporations to circumvent the VANs. Businesses could exchange transactions directly over the Internet with one another
Walmart’s September 2002 announcement was a game changer because it effectively created a market for Internet-based substitutes to VANs. Walmart used its considerable purchasing power and supply chain influence to drive Internet EDI into its supplier community. However Walmart’s supplier community was so large and diverse that this effectively meant that most of the manufacturing industry needed to begin using Internet EDI.
Wal-Mart suppliers found the technology to be inexpensive, highly reliable, and easy to use. A viral effect emerged in which suppliers began to ask other business partners to consider using AS2. The most prominent adopters of AS2 were other US retailers who quickly followed Walmart’s lead in migrating towards the new standard. Meijer, Kohls, Home Depot, and Lowes were among the first to embrace to AS2. The phenomenon spread to Europe when Walmart introduced AS2 to the UK via its ASDA brand. Over the following years Carrefour, Tesco, Metro, Macys, Sears, and nearly every other major retailer in Western Europe and North America shifted a percentage of their traffic away from VANs to AS2.
As the target of the classic “disruptive technology” phenomenon, EDI VANs appeared headed for extinction in the coming years. However, in 2011 there remains almost a $1 billion market for VANs. How did the VANs manage to avoid extinction? Answers in an upcoming post.
-
What Zappos.com can Teach us About the Supply Chain
Over the holidays I read Tony Hseih’s excellent book Delivering Happiness. Tony, of course, is the CEO of the fast growing on-line footwear retailer Zappos.com. The book has been widely read and discussed. For most people the key takeaway is the lessons learned about Zappos strong corporate culture and excellence in customer service. However, there is also a lot to be learned from the approach Zappos.com takes to the supply chain.
Drop Ship
Originally Zappos used a drop ship model for as many customer deliveries as possible. In 2003, 25% of Zappos sales were coming from drop ship. Tony commented that “The drop ship business was easy money. We didn’t have to carry inventory so we didn’t have any inventory risk or cash flow problems with that part of the business. But we had plenty of customer service challenges. The inventory feeds that we were getting from our vendors for our drop ship business were 95% accurate at best, meaning that we would not be able to actually fulfill 5% of all of our drop ship orders. On top of that, the brands did not ship as quickly or accurately as our own WHISKY warehouse, which meant we had plenty of unhappy and disappointed customers.”
In the early days during the dot com era, Zappos found that many of the brands they wanted to carry could not drop ship. The manufacturers were set up only to ship orders directly to retail distribution centers (or stores). Furthermore, the more popular shoes from the bigger brands which had drop ship capabilities were often sold out. The inventory and cash flow advantages of drop ship have led many retailers to use such an approach for B2C e-commerce, but as you can see from Zappos experience there are numerous disadvantages to customer service as well.
Warehousing and Inventory Management
Originally, Zappos outsourced order fulfillment and inventory management to eLogistics. The dot com company had acquired warehouse space next to the UPS WorldPort hub in Kentucky. Proximity to WorldHub enabled eLogistics to offer lower shipping costs and faster order delivery. As Zappos grew, the management team became frustrated with eLogistics leading the retailer to transfer responsibility for warehouse operations to an internal team. Zappos opened its own warehouse to compete against eLogistics, which eventually shut down. Tony commented on the decision by stating “As an e-commerce company, we should have considered warehousing to be our core competency from the beginning. Outsourcing that to a third party and trusting that they would care about our customers as much as we would was one of our biggest mistakes.”
Another interesting dimension to Zappos warehousing operations is that customer service and order fulfillment times the top priority above traditional retail metrics such as inventory turns. Tony stated that “We run our warehouse 24/7, which actually isn’t the most efficient way to run a warehouse…but we’re not trying to maximize for picking efficiency. We’re trying to maximize the customer experience, which in the e-commerce business is defined in part by getting orders out to our customers as quickly as possible.”
Vendor Relations
Perhaps, the most intriguing aspect of Zappos’ supply chain operations is the vendor relations program. Zappos takes a very different approach to supplier relationships than many of its peers in the retail industry. “The typical industry approach is to treat vendors like the enemy. Show them no respect, don’t return their phone calls, make them wait for scheduled appointments, and make them buy the meals. Scream at them, blame them, abuse them…anything to get as much as possible and squeeze out every last dime.”
However, Zappos seems to understand the principles Martin Christopher of Cranfield University often states, which is that “Supply Chains Compete Not Companies.” Zappos managers in the book state that “If vendors can’t make a profit then they don’t have money to invest in research and development, which in turn means that the products they bring to market will be less inspiring to customers, which in turn detriments the retailer’s business because customer’s aren’t inspired to buy. People want to cut costs and negotiate aggressively because there’s a limited amount of profit to be shared by both sides. As a result of this ‘death spiral,’ most retailers fail.”
When vendors visit Zappos headquarters, they have a car pick them up at the airport, provide a tour of the offices and always pick up the dinner check. Tony explains that “The benefits we’ve reaped from concentrating on building relationships with our vendors are endless…When inventory’s scarce, they help procure inventory on hot-selling items…They work closely with our marketing team to plan the right campaigns, making sure we’re in the right places.”
Zappos philosophy about collaboration with vendors extends to B2B e-commerce and the information supply chain as well. In the book, Zapppos managers state that “Traditionally in retail, information is hoarded, kept secret, and used as leverage against the vendors to get more out of them. Retailers wouldn’t want a vendor to know how well they’re doing so they can demand more. But if we created true transparency in our business, not only would they help us, they’d benefit as well…They’re able to see inventory levels, sales and profitability. They can write suggested orders for our buyers to approve…In effect, they’re given the keys to the shop.”
I have to agree that we rarely see such high levels of trust and collaboration in the retail supply chain, which makes me wonder why more chains are not adopting similar principles. Is there something unique about Zappos business model that enables them to offer vendors a fair profit and such high levels of transparency while other apparel and footwear retailers struggle to do the same? What do you think?
Also check out this blog – to drop ship, or not to drop ship – that is the question to ask your suppliers.
-
Four Examples of Industries Using Self-Billing
In a post earlier this week I outlined the reasons why suppliers should stop invoicing their customers in many circumstances. Instead, the buyer should self-generate the invoice based upon their view of the amounts due. The process, referred to as “self-billing” or “evaluated receipts settlement.” The following four industries provide examples of how self-billing is being used in practice today:
Automotive Manufacturing – Self-billing is often used in conjunction with Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) programs in both North America and Europe. Automotive vehicle manufacturers also use VMI models with parts and subsystem suppliers. The Japanese OEMs use a system called “kanban.” European OEMs use a variety of models such as call-off, min/max and just-in-sequence. Regardless of the VMI model used, the self-billing process is similar. The quantity of parts or raw materials consumed in a manufacturing line is calculated at a regular interval. The consumption quantities are multiplied by unit prices to arrive at line item totals on a buyer-generated invoice.
Consumer Products – Manufacturers of consumer packaged goods and food products also employ VMI programs with their upstream suppliers of packaging, ingredients or raw materials. Numerous permutations exist including schedule assignment, supplier managed inventory and consignment. However, in each of the models the vendor is responsible for determining replenishment quantities and owning the inventory until a point of consumption. Much like the automotive example, the quantity of parts or raw materials consumed in a manufacturing line is calculated then multiplied by unit prices to self-generate an invoice.
Grocery Retailing – Another form of self-billing model is called Scan-Based-Trading. Scan-Based-Trading is a form of VMI that has been adopted in selected merchandise categories of the grocery and automotive aftermarket sectors. In a Scan-Based-Trading model, the supplier retains ownership of the inventory until the consumer purchases the product. The scanning process at the Point-of-sale (POS) triggers a self-invoice generation process by the retailer. POS and pricing data housed in the retailer’s system is used to calculate the invoice amounts. Scan-Based-Trading is most popular in the US grocery industry with high-turnover products such as greeting cards, magazines, soft drinks and salty snacks. A study by the Grocery Manufacturers of America found that Scan-Based Trading projects achieved 100% Elimination of Invoice Deductions as well as 3-4% uplift in sales. Nonetheless, its adoption remains limited to only a few retail chains in North America.
Media & Entertainment – The rapidly growing market for digital goods is another area making extensive use of self-billing. Consider online purchases of music, movies, e-books, apps (software) and video games for use on mobile devices, tablets and personal computers. Media and entertainment companies such as record labels, movie studios, book and video game publishers negotiate pricing and licensing arrangements with online retailers such as Apple’s iTunes and Amazon.com, which then sell directly to customers. Billing in these scenarios is complex as there is no regular replenishment or delivery of product. In fact, the supplier has no visibility to which types of products are being sold and in what quantity. Inventory in the form of an MP3 file or other media file is exchanged once upfront. The supplier is then dependent upon the online retailer to self-report the sales on a regular basis. The sales report is often in the form of a self-generated invoice from the retailer.
-
Will AS4 Become the Communications Standard for Cloud Based Integration Services?
2010 has certainly been the year when Cloud Computing has started to get on to the agenda of many CIOs around the world. Nearly every major ICT related conference discusses Cloud Computing in some shape or form, whether it is to do with the infrastructure to support it or the applications that run within the cloud environment.
In early November I attended the 112th EDIFICE plenary in Amsterdam which was hosted by Cisco. EDIFICE is an industry organisation that helps drive the adoption of B2B standards and processes across the High Tech industry. I always find these plenary sessions useful for learning about the latest High Tech industry trends and one that caught my eye at this session was how Cisco’s was deploying an AS4 based environment called Web Services Externalization (WS-X). WS-X essentially acts as a gateway supporting different message formats and has the ability to route requests to the relevant service providers. The framework utilizes a number of modules from Apache including Axis2/Java an open source SOAP implementation, Sandesha reliability module and Apache’s Rampart, security module.
Now I have been at GXS for nearly five years and in that time I have seen a lot of interest in AS2, primarily amongst our retail customers and some of our manufacturing customers have implemented AS2 as well. A few years ago I heard that AS3 was on the starting blocks and was going to be the next big thing but for one reason or another it doesn’t seem to have seen widespread adoption, well at least compared to AS2 anyway. AS3 even promised the capability to transfer large files across the internet however even this feature didn’t help it gain momentum in the market.
AS2 had one advantage over AS3 in so much as the world’s largest retailer, Walmart, decided to standardize on AS2 for all their trading partner communications. At that time trading partner communications via the internet was receiving a lot of interest from many retailers and Walmart decided to take the initiative to try and standardize on an approach for its deployment across their business. To date AS3 has not really had this level of interest and I think it is really a solution looking for a problem. But now AS4 is here and you may be asking should companies take an interest in this when AS3 failed to gain any significant market traction?
Well I guess it is all about timing. With so much interest in everything Cloud at the moment, companies are starting to look at ways of not only deploying enterprise applications up to a cloud based environment but also looking for ways to provide integration to other cloud based services, whether they are private or public clouds. AS4, with its web services capabilities has the potential to become the cloud based communications standard moving forwards.
AS4 is quite similar to AS2 in many ways however it operates within a web services context and unlike AS2, AS4 has enhanced interaction patterns and acknowledgement receipts. AS4 has the following characteristics:
- Provides acknowledgement receipts thus enabling reliable message delivery and retry in the event of a lost message
- Provides password authentication, digital signatures and encryption , confirms authenticity of the sender and ensures that the message is unaltered whilst in transit
- Offers large file compression and transfer support
- Error generation, reports any errors to the message sender of the message receiver
- Message exchange patterns, allows a rich variety of interactions between the sender and receiver
Many companies today use a variety of communication protocols when exchanging B2B documents with their trading partners. AS4 adopts the ‘just enough’ design principle and defines a lightweight profile based on ebMS3.0. The light weight nature of AS4 means that it is a relatively low cost communications standard to implement and is therefore ideal for use with trading partners based in emerging markets for example. Trading partners in these regions typically have limited technical capabilities. Many high tech suppliers are establishing a presence in the ‘new’ emerging markets of Vietnam and Thailand.
As mentioned previously AS4 has the potential to become the standard for inter-cloud integration. From an integration perspective there are two key layers that make up an integration stack, these are the messaging layer and the payload layer. To achieve cloud interoperability Cisco is of the opinion that AS4 is the appropriate standard for the messaging layer. Cisco strives to use industry standards where possible and in order to support transactions with high tech trading partners the payload layer may use either OAGIS or RosettaNet PIP standards.
A key challenge in cloud computing is the interoperability among various cloud providers. This will continue to be a challenge until interoperability requirements are standardized to support business exchanges. AS4 helps to address this challenge for the messaging layer. The combination of standardized transports and message content will help facilitate critical adoption levels, continuing to drive down costs, and improve time to capability for business exchanges over the internet.
Cisco is the one of the first companies that I have heard of that is actively using AS4 and as with the Walmart effect caused by their AS2 supplier mandate I wonder if Cisco will help to see wider adoption of AS4 in the High Tech market space?, especially given their position in the market of setting up data centres for hosting cloud based infrastructures.
If nothing else AS4 is perfectly timed to meet the challenging needs of integrating cloud based services.
-
Common eDiscovery error #5: Blind dates
Often, you want to limit a search to a specified date range. Sounds easy enough. But like so much in e-discovery, it is often easier said than done.
The truth is, it is sometimes difficult to determine the precise date of a document—especially from the metadata. There are a number of reasons why this is so. Some document files may be missing key dates altogether, often because the dates were lost or corrupted somewhere in the course of the document’s processing. Other documents may show incorrect dates, such as when errors in processing or when copying alters a document’s “last modified” date.
And then there is the question of which date to use. A document’s metadata can carry a string of dates, relating to when it was created, modified, printed, e-mailed and the like. Or a document can be linked to another—such as in the case of an e-mail and an attachment—where each linked document has a different creation date. If the attachment is within the search range but the e-mail is not, what do you do?
You need to carefully QC. Are the dates you are searching for correctly populated? Are you searching for the correct fields in your date range search?
The OpenText™ Insight team typically populates two fields, DocDate and ParentDate, to make searching easier:
- DocDate: If it’s an e-mail, this will typically be the date sent. If it’s an e-doc, we typically populate DocDate with the date last modified. There are also special rules if these fields are null in the data, special rules for calendar items, contacts and other special document types.
- ParentDate: If there is a family of related documents, each document in the family will be assigned the same ParentDate, which is typically the DocDate of the e-mail to which the other documents were attached. If it is a Word document that has an Excel spreadsheet attached, then the spreadsheet will inherit the ParentDate from the Word document.
- If you are sure that DocDate and ParentDate are correctly populated, then you can search for ParentDate or DocDate, as appropriate, which makes things much easier. (Searching for one will return different results than the other, so make sure an attorney who understands how to handle families that span the limits of the date range is involved in the decision.)
If the DocDate or ParentDate fields are NOT populated consistently, then be sure to search for the right combinations of (EmailSentDate or EmailRecievedDate or CreateDate) for e-mails and for (CreateDate or LastModifiedDate) for e-docs. And remember to think about how to handle documents for which the date fields you are searching are empty or set to a year such as 1900.
Also, sometimes you want the earliest date, such as the creation date of a document, and other times you want the latest date, such as the date last modified. It isn’t the same in every case.
There are a number of published glossaries that include various definitions. Here are the newest definitions from The Sedona Conference® Glossary (Fourth Edition) (2014 Version):
- Date Created: The date a file was created on or moved to the media where it currently resides. If a file is moved to a new storage media, typically this date will reflect the date of the move.
- Date Last Accessed: The date a file was last accessed, meaning last opened or moved, or even copied depending on the technology used to copy.
- Date Last Modified: The date the file was last changed either by a modification to the content or format, printed, or changed by the automatic running of any macros that are executed upon the file being opened. The change is normally a substantive change to the document or its metadata and not a change to its storage location or an indication whether the file was opened and read.
- Date Sent: The date on which an e-mail was sent by the original author.
- Date Received: The date on which an e-mail was received.
- Document Date: Generally, the term used to describe the date the document was last modified or out in final form; applies equally to paper and electronic files.
Just make sure that you understand both (1) the way the date fields in your data are populated, and (2) which fields to search for in order to find the correct set of data.
Two other notes. First, while date range searches can handle a variety of formats, when searching for dates in the text, be sure to search for alternative ways the date may be formatted. For example, searching for 6/6/02 is different than 06/06/02, 06/06/2002, June 6, 2002, etc. With foreign languages, it becomes even more complex. For example, in Japanese this example could be in English, or in English formatted dd/mm/yyyy, or 2006年6月6日 or even other formats. And of course, the British use 6 March 2006.
Finally, time zones can vary. Stand-alone documents generally bear the date of the local PC, while e-mails may take on the date and time of the local machine or of the server. You may need to process documents with Greenwich Mean Time (same as UTC – Coordinated Universal Time) in order to make sure that a document isn’t received a day before it was sent.
-
The Great Thing about Standards is There are So Many to Choose From
Standards enjoy a unique challenge in private industry sectors. Standards require competitors to agree upon consistent approaches to technology implementations and business processes. However, in a competitive marketplace how can a company obtain differentiation if all the players within an industry are using the same processes and technology? Standards evangelists offer an answer to the dilemma. Pundits proclaim that industry leaders should delineate business processes between those which do and do not provide competitive advantage. Those which are non-differentiating functions should be standardized across companies for the sake of optimizing efficiency in the marketplace. Conversely, for functions that do provide competitive advantage standards should not be as strictly enforced.
The argument is logical. However, there is critical flaw in the theory. In most cases, there is not consistent agreement on what functions or technologies are the sources of competitive advantage. What one company considers a commoditized, low-value function might provide another with an opportunity for innovation and advantage. Most would agree that functions such as product design, customer service and marketing/merchandising can provide differentiation. What about back office processes such as order fulfillment, transportation management and accounts payable? Most would argue that these “behind-the-scenes” functions offer little opportunity for differentiation. However, real world analysis suggests that there are many different competing models for each business process. Some companies use a buyer-PO driven approach to traditional order management while others use Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI). There are numerous permutations of shipment and logistics models gaining increasing adoption. Examples include drop-shipping, cross-docking and floor-ready merchandise. Even accounts payable organizations are defining more innovative approaches to business processes such as evaluated receipts settlement and supply chain finance.
What about technologies such as B2B e-commerce which enable the sharing of data between different business partners? Most would argue that it is the information that is of value, not the approach to sharing it. However, real world analysis suggests that there is an increasing tendency to deviate from standards for sharing information in the supply chain. In fact, there are over 100 different B2B e-commerce standards being used in the information supply chain around the world. A multitude of XML standards now exist, which model every conceivable buyer-to-supplier transaction imaginable. Examples include RosettaNet, OAG, Tradacoms, EAIJ, Odette, CIDX, PIDX and SPEC2000. New frameworks for sharing XML with rich choreographies and comprehensive data models have been developed in the form of Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN); Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) and RosettaNet Partner Interface Processes (PIPs).
Someone once said “The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.” That phrase has been repeated for years, somewhat in jest, by various thought leaders in the technology and engineering industries. But it reflects a paradoxical challenge that exists with trying to standardize business processes and technology interfaces in a competitive marketplace. And the B2B e-commerce industry offers an excellent case study for exploring these challenges.
Why are there so many different standards competing to automate the same procurement, transportation and forecasting business processes? An even better question is why are so many large companies increasingly deviating from B2B e-commerce standards they helped to develop? These are questions I will explore in my next post.
