TASK 9B: Electronic Commerce/Electronic Data Interchange (EC/EDI)
Volume 1 of 2
Electronic Data Interchange Implementation and Transition Road Map (March 21, 1995)
Today, we have two (2) major standards supporting Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). Here in the United States, we have the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards Committee known as X12. This set of standards is very robust and has matured since its founding in 1979 "to develop uniform standards for electronic interchange of business transactions." Internationally, primarily in Europe, we have the United Nations Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce, and Transport (UN/EDIFACT). There has been considerable debate in the United States on when, and in some industries if ever, the U.S. should adopt the UN/EDIFACT standard. In a report for the Department of Defense (DoD) by the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) on the future DoD use of UN/EDIFACT, LMI presented an analysis of the two standards and identified a key element in resolving the issue of incompatibility. The report states that "we need to determine where dictionary commonalty [sic] is necessary." The report also stated that "until a detailed study is performed to determine what data can be carried in those messages, DoD will not know how well current and developmental UN/EDIFACT standards can support its business requirements and how many changes to those standards will have to be made."
Based on LMI's initial findings, DoD initiated this assessment to:
* Analyze data elements supporting X12 and UN/EDIFACT transactions and develop a data dictionary structure and mapping to account for inconsistencies in definition and usage.
* Determine translation feasibility and test leading commercial translation capabilities for accuracy in translation to and from user environments into X12 and UN/EDIFACT.
* Develop a model for determining a transition plan to UN/EDIFACT in coordination with ongoing LMI and Digital Information Standards Association (DISA) activities.
* Assess Impact of UN/EDIFACT transition on product data and "interactive EDI" for DoD procurement processes.
* Develop measurement criteria for managing and assessing the transition to UN/EDIFACT including metrics for determining return on investment within procurement functions.
* Evaluate Internet for Integrated Weapon System Database (IWSDB) support of EC/EDI in the procurement process.
* Assess commercial EC/EDI computer software and Value-Added Networks (VANs) that could support transition to UN/EDIFACT.
* Analyze security capabilities/plans of UN/EDIFACT.
* Develop a road map for transitioning to UN/EDIFACT, including organizations, processes, objectives and schedules.
The purpose of the study was to determine the technical feasibility of translation and transition from X12 to UN/EDIFACT, and to evaluate support for an EC/EDI data dictionary that is key to translation and transition activities. The analysis focused on the data elements supporting these two standards for purchase order messages.
Given a perfect world, there should be only one EDI standard, and more importantly, a consistent data dictionary supporting that standard. Currently there is neither. The data element analyses of the X12 850 Purchase Order and the UN/EDIFACT ORDERS messages indicate a significant degree (45%) of consistency between the two standards' data definitions. The percent of data elements that do not match is also significant at 39%. The remaining 16% of data elements have some partial degree of consistency. This finding leads to the conclusion that not only are X12 and UN/EDIFACT different at the message comparison level as the LMI report details, but they are also different at the data definition level. Thus, when Implementation Conventions (ICs) required to use the standard are developed, choices made at the data definition level will compound the difficulty for enterprises to implement a cost effective international EDI solution, or integrate it with their business infrastructures. The proliferation of ICs and resulting inconsistencies in messages and data definitions can undermine the standards themselves and create a costly EDI environment for U.S. Government and industry. Direct translation between the standards is not reasonable to implement without greater consistency between the data definitions.
Microsoft Word 6.0 for Windows (4176 KB)
Appendix A
X12 and EDIFACT Glossary
This appendix contains a glossary of terms used in the X12 and EDIFACT environment for EDI.
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix F
Volume 2 of 2
Electronic Data Interchange Implementation and Transition Road Map (March 21, 1995)
Title Page
Translation Mapping Results for X12/EDIFACT