“Demystifying EDI – acronyms and other common terms.”
About EDI
Common Terms
There is a difference between truly integrated electronic document exchange, where documents are taken directly into and out of your main business systems without the need for human intervention, and electronic data exchange where one partner may receive emailed PDF transport orders or Proof of Delivery (POD) documents. Both approaches have a role to play and can be provided by SCD.
The world of electronic document exchange is populated by a bewildering number of alternative standards and technologies. There are standards for the message format (the equivalent for the layout on the page) and also for the communication methodologies (the equivalent of sending your letter by post, registered post, fax etc.).
Before the internet there were two major EDI message format standards used in the UK and Europe, Tradacoms (mainly a British Retail Standard) and UN/EDIFACT. Pre-Internet integrated EDI was achieved by routing messages via a Value Added Network (VAN) which would receive and pass on messages for users and charge for this service. With the arrival of the Internet these VANs are no longer necessary (although SCD can provide this service if required) and we now have the option of new communication methodologies, such as AS2, which allow successful message transmission to be receipted so that users can see proof of message receipt.
Also with the Internet came a host of new message formats including those based on eXtensible Mark-up Language (XML). XML facilitates the sharing of data between systems without the need for multiple layers of conversion. However there are hundreds of XML “standards” in use, some industry specific and some generic.
And then there are the companies using CSV or “flat file” standards, which are essentially data lists and are created from applications such as spreadsheets.
The main problem arising from the profusion of EDI message formats and communication methodologies is that each business partner you wish to integrate may have a different requirement, based on the capabilities of the system they are operating or their accepted standards. Companies integrating with their partners on a one-to-one basis therefore risk the situation illustrated in the diagram below, where each new relationship requires either the sender or recipient to reconfigure their messages in a new format.
