Hearthlist Digest #466 - Friday, July 14, 2000 whoa techie talk by "by way of Craig Issod" <[email protected]> Re: PO's , etc by "Roger Sanders" <[email protected]>
(back) Subject: whoa techie talk From: "by way of Craig Issod" <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:16:33 -0400 I love the ideas of increasing entry efficiencies but how can we ever expect EDI when we can't get suppliers to provide us with price sheets and data on floppy disks. One step at a time boys>>> I suggest we lobby to have some suppliers turn on them there computer boxes. Ken Fulgione ____________________________________ United Buyers Forging a Stronger Fire http://www.weyrkeep.com/unitedbuyers/mission Hearth Dealer Inquiries Welcome _______________________________________
(back) Subject: Re: PO's , etc From: "Roger Sanders" <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:33:24 -0400 [email protected] wrote: > Hearthlist Digest #465 - Thursday, July 13, 2000 > > > > Subject: Re: POs > From: "Jim Butchart HPA Webmaster" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:12:58 -0400 > > Interesting stuff. Roger, a computer generated fax may be easy for you, = but > what about the manufacturer or distributor on the other end? They still > have to "rip and read" the fax and manually input the order. And they = do > this all day long. There are lots of opportunity for error and lost = orders. > Plus all the associated costs of paying that poor clerk to type orders = all > year. > > I wouldn't hold my breath for our manufacturers to catch on either. But > just wait until someone approaches them or their competitor and proposes > sending all orders and payments electronically already formatted to = enter > their system without human intervention. As a manufacturer, what would = this > be worth. Would I get a better price as a purchaser? I should! > > This wouldn't be a Napster derivative. I'll be surprised if Napster is > still alive next year. They are being sued out of existence. What I am > hinting at is EDI. It won't be pushed down anyone's throat by a = non-profit > trade organization. It will be done by someone willing to think outside = the > box and wants to make some money like any true entrepreneur. Everyone = else > will stay with their paper and pencil and faxes and will be perfectly = happy > doing business as usual. In the dark. > > EDI does not require anyone to change the format of their data. There = is no > standardized format for accounting data. This is where most get lost in = the > concept. The trick is to translate the buyers data to marry up with the > sellers data fields. Or find out what the seller needs and go from = there. > Jim, This automated PO subject is definitely worth continuing discussions. I do need to clearify my previous points first. I completely agree that EDI is where it's at, BUT you have to get the cart before the horse!!! There are huge problems in our manufacturer relationships that need to be resolved before any EDI can function and may represent 90% of the effort to make EDI work. 1. We need to all use a standardized format for defining what the heck is purchased. 2. Manufacturers must SIGNIFICANTLY improve the way they process our POs. Our POs are many times dumped into a BLACK HOLE of total confusion. I realize that a FAX is not a digital format. I agree that industry wide rekeying in of millions of lines of data is totally absurd. But, I have NO SYMPATHY for our poor manufacturers that have to key in retailer's FAXed PO data. THIS IS A REAL SORE POINT WITH ME. It starts with them, not us. They, to this day, refuse to provide us with usable digital SKU data. This forces us to key in all their data manually, before we can do anything. We waste millions of key strokes on thousands of lines of text, and weeks of labor each year. Right now, I and many retailers, COULD give them POs as digital Excel attachments to e-mails, which would eliminate all their rekeying work. I won't do it until they provide us with usable digital SKU data and we have a standardized SKU format. As to my NAPSTER reference, it was not refering to NAPSTER's specific software for sharing music, but to the general concept of using the net to have direct interface and data sharing among thousands of hard drives. This kind of direct interconnection would be ideal for our EDI, given the right software. Accounting data is not SKU data and it can't be used to justify SKU data being randomly organized. Even accounting data has universally accepted formatting (the double entry processes) and CPAs spent years of their lives trying to maintain commonality in applying accounting definitions to their client needs. Our industry's SKU data currently has zero standardization and it has gigantic flaws in its content. I sincerely believe that no software will ever be able to as you say "translate the buyers data to marry up with the sellers data fields", unless manufacturers and retailers accept the same definitions and formats. This commonality can certainly come from a variety of sources, as has been done in other industrys. Let me also repeat that all the perfect hearth EDI in the world will not be any good if most manufacturers continue to ignore retailer needs for PO confirmation and continue to give retailers bad shipping dates.