Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ASC X12 CHAIR REPORT Kendra L. Martin, ASC X12 Chair February 2, 1998.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ASC X12 CHAIR REPORT Kendra L. Martin, ASC X12 Chair February 2, 1998."— Presentation transcript:

1 ASC X12 CHAIR REPORT Kendra L. Martin, ASC X12 Chair February 2, 1998

2 X12 Membership Remains Steady FY 93FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97

3 Computer 5% Consulting 9% Other 5% Software 11% Banking & Financial 6% Transportation 5% Service Industry 7% Government 8% Trade & Nonprofit Association 8% Healthcare 2% Insurance 21% Manufacturing 13% General Industry Types Comprising X12 Membership

4 $424,800 $474,000 $564,000 $464,000 $624,400 $682,900 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 FY 93FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97FY 98 Projected X12 Publications Net Revenue Grows

5 X12 Meeting Attendance Feb-95Jun-95Oct-95Feb-96Jun-96Oct-96Feb-97Jun-97Oct-97Feb-98 projected

6 X12 Draft Standards for Trial Use Published in Annual Release

7 UN/EDIFACT Messages Other Travel, Tourism & Leisure Transportation Statistics Social Security, Employment & Education Purchasing Product Quality Data Material Management Insurance Healthcare Finance Directory Support Services Customs Arch., Eng. & Construct. Accounting, Auditing, Reg. & Financial Info Serv.

8 X12 Data Maintenance Requests Processed FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97FY 98 projected

9 , NOV 97DEC 97JAN 98 Number of Unique Visitors Web Site Activity

10 KEY 1998 CHALLENGES u Strategic Implementation Task Group u Global EDI Standards u Six-Month Maintenance Cycle

11 SITG OBJECTIVE Make EDI technology widely available, non-obtrusive to the business process, & cost effective for all organizations METRICS: – Well-defined, consistent standards for interoperability – Off-the-shelf, commercially available tools – Separate standards development from application design & programming – Availability of training & reference solutions, e.g., leverage industry efforts – Automatic generation of EDI interactions – Separation of data definition & format from transport layer

12 SITG DELIVERABLES u Develop US action plan for implementation of next generation of EDI u Develop framework for and ensure design of architecture to support next generation of EDI u Develop appropriate bridges from current to future state u Ensure there is a single adopted EDI architecture solution for both X12 & international requirements

13 WHAT WE HAVE DONE u Formed 2/97 u Cleared deck of “history & emotion” u Confirmed that change was required u Organized to begin work – WG 1 Plan Development – WG 2 Education & Awareness – WG 3 Technical Development – WG 4 Customer Requirements & Metrics u Participating in comparable international process – Developed “Reference Guide” – Draft Project Plan

14 DUAL TRACK u Any way of doing EDI must permit current & new EDI to exist in parallel u Must define a migration path to assist user community in transition u NOT talking alignment – But we are talking “convergence”

15 WHAT IS OUR VISION? Implement Open-edi u Modeled Approach u Object-Oriented Technology The “Shrink Wrap” Solution

16 WHY OPEN-EDI? u Opportunity to lower barriers to electronic data exchange by introducing standard business scenarios & services to support them u Permits electronic processing of business transactions among autonomous organizations within & across sectors u Broadens X12’s scope in the Electronic Commerce playing field

17 BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER Standards Body for: Business Process Models and Class Libraries Software Providers for: Application Development Expertise Affordable “Plug and Play” Business Solutions for the User Community WIN - WIN

18 ISSUES FOR X12 u Change will be required  Process  Roles (users, membership, etc.)  Nature of the standards  Acceptance of convergence of all EDI standards  Level of modeling u Rapidity of change u Resource implications u External relationships  Corporate awareness & support  “Co-opetition” & liaison with other organizations u Outreach

19 SITG & X12 -- NEXT STEPS u Approve the “plan” for the Project Plan  Conduct the analysis u Technical Work  Build pilot for Catalog Order  Create business models  Create business objects u Organizational Work  Define components for standardization  Define organizational structure u Training & education in and out of X12

20 GLOBAL EDI STANDARDS u Shift in Focus from EDIFACT Integration to CEFACT Implementation u First Empowered “EDIFACT Work Group” Meeting set for 3/98 u DLTG and P&P Enhancing OPM and SD6

21 6-MONTH MAINTENANCE CYCLE Proposal: 2 publication updates each year 2 Full X12 Meetings each year (May & Nov.) - Approve X12 Ballots & Publication Updates 2 Working X12 Meetings each year (Feb. & Aug.) - Review/respond to X12 ballot comments - Optional meetings for Subcommittees

22 WHY DO THIS? X12’s focus continues to shift from pure development to maintenance & implementation. Implications: Most users don’t need 3 publication cycles/year Most X12 subgroups don’t need 3 meetings/year Plus: X12’s current 4-month cycle does not align well with EDIFACT Working Group’s 6-month schedule

23 HOW WOULD IT WORK? Mid Feb Change Request Cut-Off Early Apr TAS Interim Meeting (Assign Change Requests) Early May FULL X12 MEETING (Ballot Package Determined) Jun 45-day X12 Ballot Period Early Aug X12 Working Meeting (Ballot Comment Response) Sep 30-day Rebuttal Ballot Period or 45-day Reballot Period Early Nov FULL X12 MEETING (Publication Authorized) Jan Annual Release is Published

24 FULL X12 MEETINGS Who Would Meet? -- SubcommitteesYes-- Steering Comm.Yes -- TAS Yes -- General SessionYes -- PRBYes DELIVERABLES:Approved X12 Ballot Package (current cycle) Approved publication (previous cycle) WORKING X12 MEETINGS Who Would Meet? -- SubcommitteesOptional, except for ballot comment responses -- TASYes-- Steering Comm.No -- PRBNo -- General SessionNo DELIVERABLES:Ballot comment responses Rebuttal vs. Reballot decision

25 ADVANTAGES  Provides flexible meeting frequency options  Reduces # meetings to attend for many people (3 to 2)  Reduces elapsed time to approve a complicated change  Allows better SC participation in maintenance ballot review  Allows better process alignment with EDIFACT  Reduces # sub-releases users have to deal with (2 to 1)  Reduces administrative costs somewhat

26 DISADVANTAGES  Increases number of meetings for some people (3 to 4)  Increases elapsed time to approve some new transaction sets  Decreases opportunities to publish new standards (3 to 2)  Requires some X12 process change

27 PATH FORWARD Feb ‘98Steering Committee decides whether to authorize an X12 member ballot Feb-JunX12 Member Ballot Jun ‘98Steering Committee decides when to implement based on positive ballot result Feb ‘99Earliest potential start-up of new process

28 THIS WEEK’S AGENDA: u Education on Strategic Implementation Task Group activities u Input into Procedures for EDIFACT Working Group and SD6 u Discussion of Six-Month Publication Cycle Proposal

29 I welcome your on-going input... Tel: (202) Fax: (202)

Download ppt "ASC X12 CHAIR REPORT Kendra L. Martin, ASC X12 Chair February 2, 1998."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google