In the recent survey ec-bp.org conducted to find out just how well EDI implementations have gone, and what went wrong, there were more successful initiatives than not. In fact, when asked about eight separate aspects of their implementations and which were successful, more than half of the respondents identified four of the aspects as successful. The other four aspects were listed as successful by more than one-third of the respondents.Here’s a breakdown: setup-65 percent; installation-53 percent; cooperation from provider-53 percent, and testing of documents-53 percent. The other parts—configuration, cooperation from trading partners, adherence to specifications, and the go-live—all achieved good marks too, in the 40-50 percent range (the lowest was adherence to specifications, of which only 42 percent said was successful).
I’ll admit that the percentages aren’t high enough, but at least they aren’t abysmal. But what I found interesting is that the thorny issue of communication kept resurfacing throughout the survey. Case in point: when asked “What part of your implementation went wrong?” one respondent answered: “We have an especially difficult time when a customer outsources their EDI to a third party. When we have questions regarding the business meaning of the EDI data, the third-party EDI service will refer us to the customer, but then the customer refers us back to their EDI service provider.” Another answered: “Frequent un-communicated deliverables and expectation results.”
And when asked what one thing would you change about your implementation, one respondent answered: “Making sure that everyone was on the same page before we started the project.” Another simply said: “EDI teams communicating closely.”
There are plenty more examples I could show you, but I think the point is made. Any successful EDI implementation requires clear, direct and regular communication between all the partners in the chain. Perhaps some of the frustration around communication is centered on the specifications that drive the EDI transactions. Each trading partner needs to spell out the requirements and associated specifications regarding what information is to be transmitted and how it should be used. The specifications must be agreed upon by all partners.
Make sure each party has submitted sufficient information related to the specifications. Real-world descriptions – such as package qualifiers – that direct how the information should be interpreted are vital pieces of information that need to go hand-in-hand with specifications. This information can go a long way in avoiding errors.
Agree up front on who the point person, or people, are within an organization when issues arise. Make sure the contact information is up-to-date and that your trading partners have it. Also spell out among all the partners (and agree upon, where applicable) the consequences or workarounds when issues arrive.
I’ve just hit on a few aspects that need to be fully communicating to produce more successful EDI chains. One thing to remember, with regards to EDI, is that EDI is really about facilitating business relationships. EDI, while run via technology, isn’t about technology. It’s about business, it’s about relationships. And both require clear, direct, and regular communication.
