ASC X12 CHAIR REPORT
Kendra L. Martin, ASC X12 Chair
February 2, 1998
X12 Membership Remains Steady
1000
800
842
838
FY 95
FY 96
848
782
728
600
FY 93
FY 94
FY 97
General Industry Types
Comprising X12 Membership
Transportation
Banking & Financial
6%
5%
Computer
5%
Insurance
21%
Healthcare
Service Industry
7%
2%
Trade & Nonprofit
Association
8%
Government
8%
Software
11%
Consulting
9%
Other
5%
Manufacturing
13%
X12 Publications Net Revenue Grows
$800,000
$700,000
$682,900
FY 97
FY 98
$564,000
$600,000
$500,000
$624,400
$424,800
$474,000
$464,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
FY 93
FY 94
FY 95
FY 96
Projected
X12 Meeting Attendance
1200
1036
934
1000
831
930
901
899
828
800
875
800
792
600
400
200
0
Feb-95 Jun-95 Oct-95
Feb-96 Jun-96 Oct-96
Feb-97 Jun-97
Oct-97
Feb-98
projected
X12 Draft Standards for Trial Use
Published in Annual Release
350
300
232
250
200
256
273
1995
1996
295
195
150
100
50
0
1993
1994
1997
UN/EDIFACT Messages
10
Accounting, Auditing, Reg. & Financial Info Serv.
Arch., Eng. & Construct.
13
Customs
10
Directory Support Services
7
Finance
41
22
Healthcare
Insurance
53
Material Management
13
Product Quality Data
9
Purchasing
27
42
Social Security, Employment & Education
Statistics
16
Transportation
54
Travel, Tourism & Leisure
27
Other
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
X12 Data Maintenance
Requests Processed
800
700
747
639
589
600
501
500
375
400
300
200
100
0
FY 94
FY 95
FY 96
FY 97
FY 98
projected
Number of Unique Visitors
Web Site Activity
12000
10000
8000
10,369
8033
7731
NOV 97
DEC 97
6000
4000
2000
0
JAN 98
KEY 1998 CHALLENGES
Strategic Implementation Task
Group
 Global EDI Standards
 Six-Month Maintenance Cycle

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
SITG DELIVERABLES
Develop US action plan for implementation of
next generation of EDI
 Develop framework for and ensure design of
architecture to support next generation of EDI
 Develop appropriate bridges from current to
future state
 Ensure there is a single adopted EDI
architecture solution for both X12 &
international requirements

WHAT WE HAVE DONE




Formed 2/97
Cleared deck of “history & emotion”
Confirmed that change was required
Organized to begin work
–
–
–
–

WG 1 Plan Development
WG 2 Education & Awareness
WG 3 Technical Development
WG 4 Customer Requirements & Metrics
Participating in comparable international process
–
–
Developed “Reference Guide”
Draft Project Plan
DUAL TRACK
 Any
way of doing EDI must
permit current & new EDI
to exist in parallel
 Must define a migration
path to assist user
community in transition
 NOT talking alignment
– But we are talking
“convergence”
WHAT IS OUR VISION?
Implement Open-edi


Modeled Approach
Object-Oriented Technology
The “Shrink Wrap” Solution
WHY OPEN-EDI?
 Opportunity
to lower barriers to electronic data
exchange by introducing standard business
scenarios & services to support them
 Permits electronic processing of business
transactions among autonomous
organizations within & across sectors
 Broadens X12’s scope in the Electronic
Commerce playing field
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER
Standards
Body for:
Business Process
Models and
Class Libraries
WIN WIN
Software
Providers for:
Application
Development
Expertise
Affordable “Plug and Play” Business
Solutions for the User Community
ISSUES FOR X12
 Change will be required
 Process
 Roles (users, membership, etc.)
 Nature of the standards
 Acceptance of convergence of all EDI standards
 Level of modeling
 Rapidity
of change
 Resource implications
 External relationships


Corporate awareness & support
“Co-opetition” & liaison with other organizations
 Outreach
SITG & X12 -- NEXT STEPS

Approve the “plan” for the Project Plan


Technical Work




Build pilot for Catalog Order
Create business models
Create business objects
Organizational Work



Conduct the analysis
Define components for standardization
Define organizational structure
Training & education in and out of X12
GLOBAL EDI STANDARDS
 Shift
in Focus from EDIFACT Integration
to CEFACT Implementation
 First Empowered “EDIFACT Work Group”
Meeting set for 3/98
 DLTG and P&P Enhancing OPM and SD6
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
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
HOW WOULD IT WORK?
Mid Feb
Early Apr
Early May
Jun
Early Aug
Sep
Early Nov
Jan
Change Request Cut-Off
TAS Interim Meeting (Assign Change Requests)
FULL X12 MEETING (Ballot Package Determined)
45-day X12 Ballot Period
X12 Working Meeting (Ballot Comment Response)
30-day Rebuttal Ballot Period or
45-day Reballot Period
FULL X12 MEETING (Publication Authorized)
Annual Release is Published
FULL X12 MEETINGS
Who Would Meet?
-- Subcommittees
-- TAS
-- PRB
DELIVERABLES:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Approved X
Approved p
WORKING X12 MEETINGS
Who Would Meet?
-- Subcommittees
-- TASYes
-- PRB
No
DELIVERABLES:
Optional, ex
-- Steering C
-- G
Ballot comm
Rebuttal vs.
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
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
PATH FORWARD
Feb ‘98
Steering Committee decides whether to
authorize an X12 member ballot
Feb-Jun
X12 Member Ballot
Jun ‘98
Steering Committee decides when to
implement based on positive ballot result
Feb ‘99
Earliest potential start-up of new process
THIS WEEK’S AGENDA:



Education on Strategic
Implementation Task Group activities
Input into Procedures for EDIFACT
Working Group and SD6
Discussion of Six-Month Publication
Cycle Proposal
I welcome your on-going input...
martink@api.org
Tel: (202) 682-8517
Fax: (202) 963-4730