Assessing the Impact of XML/EDI with Real Option Valuation

von Dr. Shermin Voshmgir

Erste Seite des Dokuments | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite

Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende

[1.] Svr/Fragment 001 02 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2020-01-17 14:52:35 [[Benutzer:|]]
Fragment, Gesichtet, Kobielus 2000, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Svr, Verschleierung

Typus
Verschleierung
Bearbeiter
Klgn
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 1, Zeilen: 2-24
Quelle: Kobielus 2000
Seite(n): 57, Zeilen: left col., 10 ff.
[0. Introduction]

Companies today are trying hard to find a way to link their internal business processes with those of trading partners without plunging themselves into a maze of technical headaches and integration costs. No robust standards have yet emerged to support interoperable, cross-platform e-business. The typical e-business software products today cover topics as customer relationship management (CRM), electronic data interchange (EDI), enterprise application integration and enterprise resource planning (ERP), but the industry is nowhere near delivering anything resembling plug-and-play technical integration at the Business-to-Business (B2B) level.

Yet the basics of e-business are quite simple. They revolve around two familiar technologies that companies have known for years: EDI and workflow, where EDI stands for structured document routing between companies, and workflow for structured document routing within each organization. But, EDI and workflow have been separated by their divergent spheres of application.

The virtual business is constantly repositioning itself through dynamic alliances with an ever-changing set of trading partners. Therefore, an Internet-based trading community can only be reality where all participants share a common process model, an agreed-upon set of business rules that govern structured transactions. Just as important, all participants will have to implement a common B2B interoperability framework that allows them to enter easily into new trading relationships without the need for costly, time-consuming, (bilateral) or multilateral coordination of legal agreements and technical interfaces, as is the case with classic EDI.

Enterprise customers are scratching their heads trying to figure how to link their internal business processes with those of trading partners and not plunge themselves into a vortex of technical headaches and integration costs. No robust standards have yet emerged to support interoperable, cross-platform e-business. The industry is nowhere near delivering anything resembling plug-and-play technical integration at the B2B level.

E-business is also a conceptual mess. E-business software vendors are trying hard to help customers sort through all the integration issues, but vendors are still groping for a conceptual handle on it all. The typical e-business software vendor’s product roadmap invokes such familiar, but vague, topics as customer relationship management, electronic data interchange, enterprise application integration and enterprise resource planning (ERP).

Yet the basics of e-business are quite simple. They revolve around two familiar technologies that companies have implemented for years: EDI and workflow. [...]

EDI and workflow have been separated by their divergent spheres of application: EDI for structured document routing between companies; workflow for structured routing within each organization. [...] The virtual business is constantly repositioning itself through dynamic alliances with an ever-changing set of trading partners.

An Internet-based trading community can thrive only where all participants share a common process model — an agreed-upon set of business rules that govern structured transactions. Just as important, all participants will have to implement a common B2B interoperability framework that allows them to enter easily into new trading relationships without the need for costly, time-consuming, multilateral coordination of legal agreements and technical interfaces.

Anmerkungen

No source is given.

Sichter
(Klgn), SleepyHollow02


[2.] Svr/Fragment 001 25 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2020-01-15 22:32:15 [[Benutzer:|]]
Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Shankar 1999, Svr, Verschleierung

Typus
Verschleierung
Bearbeiter
Klgn
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 1, Zeilen: 25-29
Quelle: Shankar 1999
Seite(n): 47, Zeilen: first paragraph
Traditionally, EDI has been effective for communicating transactions between companies, but only large enterprises performing a high volume of transactions have realized significant benefits using it. Now the XML standard promises an open standard for cost-effective B2B Internet commerce that will enable midsize and smaller companies to use EDI. TRADITIONALLY, electronic data interchange (EDI) has been effective for communicating transactions between companies, but only large enterprises performing a high volume of transactions have realized significant benefits using it. Now the Extensible Markup Language (XML) standard promises an open standard for secure, cost-effective business-to-business Internet commerce that will bring midsize and smaller companies into the fold.
Anmerkungen

No source is given.

Sichter
(Klgn) Schumann



Erste Seite des Dokuments | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Klgn, Zeitstempel: 20200117083029
Nutzung von Community-Inhalten gemäß CC-BY-SA, sofern nicht anders angegeben.
… weitere Daten zur Seite „Svr/001
(Klgn) +, SleepyHollow02 +  und (Klgn) Schumann +