Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Manugistics, Inc. (MANU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Willie C. who wrote (763)	6/12/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1670

Willie C, I am just looking into Rosettanet (in fact I just discovered it 2 weeks ago or so) so Im hardly an expert.... (which has never stopped me from having an opinion). Im just trying to find out how this is different from yet another set of standards for some set of business processes. Generally, there is a feeling that if a set of standards could be achieved for scm, oe, purchasing, etc. then everything would be simpler... the ERPs could incorporate these stds in their core functionality and some software where multi-vendor integration is a key value proposition (scm) would lose some of their edge (is that what you are thinking?). In theory this is fine of course but the reality is that these "standards initiatives" in the past have mostly been a technical structure forced upon somewhat nonstructured business processes - so they don't work, at least not easily, and the value proposition is low. The precursor to some of what Rosettanet is trying to achieve was the old EDI structures - Im sure everyone remembers EDI. There were things like "ship advice" EDI transactions that needed to be communicated from one vendor to another. X.12 was the std that we were supposed to adhere to which included a specific structure for this ship advice transaction (856, I think). I am sure that, when X.12 emerged as the "EDI std", many executives were overjoyed and thought they had "pioneered these concepts of corp. efficiencies" and had achieved "a broader more accessible path..." blah blah blah, etc. The situation for the technical people trying to implement (me) was, all I had from X.12 was a common header and footer. Within the business-specific body, every single field was dictated by the trading partner I wanted to interface to. 5 trading partners, 5 separate interfaces, that was it. Why? Because one was an oil company, another a hard goods supplier etc and there was completely different info that came over depending on the nature of the biz - its just very specific. Now, 3 things have changed from the past that make stds more possible today. 1) The internet 2) Std mfg platforms (Sap,Psft,Orcl,Baan), 3) Trend towards organization along vertical mkts (High-tech, Pharm, etc) within the application software companies. With these 3 things, we at least have a CHANCE at coming up with some useful stds for internet commerce. So lets say Rosettanet gets some specific industry people together and comes up with a set of common interfaces for each industry for SCM. What does that mean to the SCM companies? Maybe nothing, I think - or they will have to provide their data in the Rosettanet formats (a month development effort). But nothing about Rosettanet looks like it will REPLACE scm technology - the planning, transportation etc core functionality. Of course some of the difficulty of SCM software is the adapter (interface) component - currently provided by the scms for each of the ERPs. Maybe some of that will be eliminated from the SCM core funtionaly (again, IF this Rosettanet std committee really comes up with something). Another caveat that people forget about is a company like Dell for example, has no real incentive for these stds to emerge (dispite the fact that they may be a partner). Dell's whole game is custom automation - they are certainly NOT going to wait around for Rosettanet to come up with a set of stds for something they want to do. I also would like to remind people of Commercenet which was supposed to do this same thing a few years ago. Whatever happened to them? OK so overall Im not trying to be Ms Gloom and Doom for Rosettanet but I don't see anything there that is going to change my business in any way. I like the fact that someone is coming up with some stds, and maybe the fact that Rosettanet exists will be a warm and fuzzy for some conservative IT mgrs. Michelle PS there are new companies in the bay area trying to solve this cross-biz content issue (crossroute, etc) and if one of those takes off then there will be radical changes but Rosettanet is not radical enough.