<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Question of the Week</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.inovis.com/2007/12/07/question-of-the-week-6/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.inovis.com/2007/12/07/question-of-the-week-6/</link>
	<description>Power Profitable Business Communities™</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:00:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Question of the week &#171; The Inovis Blog</title>
		<link>http://blogs.inovis.com/2007/12/07/question-of-the-week-6/#comment-1014</link>
		<dc:creator>Question of the week &#171; The Inovis Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.inovis.com/2007/12/07/question-of-the-week-6/#comment-1014</guid>
		<description>[...]  Tags: electronic transactions, Inovis Solutions, paper transactions trackback  A few weeks ago, we asked you how many paper transactions you were still working with. Today&#8217;s question continues this thought. We&#8217;d like to know why you think it is that not [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  Tags: electronic transactions, Inovis Solutions, paper transactions trackback  A few weeks ago, we asked you how many paper transactions you were still working with. Today&#8217;s question continues this thought. We&#8217;d like to know why you think it is that not [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Dunham</title>
		<link>http://blogs.inovis.com/2007/12/07/question-of-the-week-6/#comment-566</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Dunham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.inovis.com/2007/12/07/question-of-the-week-6/#comment-566</guid>
		<description>Yes.  An unqualified, 100% sure, positive and absolutely YES.

And we send them paper documents right back....

Many of our vendors DO use a web based solution - whether through Inovis or one of the &quot;other&quot; companies out there....

And they use them not just for EDI transactions, too.  They use it for Catalog information.

From My perspective, web based solutions are the next wave (that we&#039;re currently in?) in EDI...  Not XML, as that &#039;under current&#039; has been there for years....  But taking the concept of EDI to the huddled masses, yearning to be free (from paper)....

There are a lot of little mom-n-pop type shops out there - those small and medium sized businesses - that can&#039;t afford a big, bulky EDI system of their very own.  And in some cases, they can&#039;t even afford (or see the possible dollar benefit) behind a small EDI system - such as a web-based service.  But they understand that they need to be EDI compliant if they&#039;re to be able to work with some of the biggie retailers... 

But they balk at the cost - even if it&#039;s only $50.00 a month..  As that may be 50 bucks that they just can&#039;t afford...    So they don&#039;t do it unless they&#039;re forced to do it....

I think that for web-based EDI products to REALLY take off, the price issue needs to be examined....  To big companies and suppliers, the costs are easy to understand and the ROI can be easily justified - or at least explained.... but to that small mom-n-pop shop, even just a hundred bucks to set up a single trading partner and $50.00 a month - even for a seasonal account - is just too much....  something needs to be done to make the solutions more affordable to these small companies.

Sorry to ramble on for such a simple question, but....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes.  An unqualified, 100% sure, positive and absolutely YES.</p>
<p>And we send them paper documents right back&#8230;.</p>
<p>Many of our vendors DO use a web based solution &#8211; whether through Inovis or one of the &#8220;other&#8221; companies out there&#8230;.</p>
<p>And they use them not just for EDI transactions, too.  They use it for Catalog information.</p>
<p>From My perspective, web based solutions are the next wave (that we&#8217;re currently in?) in EDI&#8230;  Not XML, as that &#8216;under current&#8217; has been there for years&#8230;.  But taking the concept of EDI to the huddled masses, yearning to be free (from paper)&#8230;.</p>
<p>There are a lot of little mom-n-pop type shops out there &#8211; those small and medium sized businesses &#8211; that can&#8217;t afford a big, bulky EDI system of their very own.  And in some cases, they can&#8217;t even afford (or see the possible dollar benefit) behind a small EDI system &#8211; such as a web-based service.  But they understand that they need to be EDI compliant if they&#8217;re to be able to work with some of the biggie retailers&#8230; </p>
<p>But they balk at the cost &#8211; even if it&#8217;s only $50.00 a month..  As that may be 50 bucks that they just can&#8217;t afford&#8230;    So they don&#8217;t do it unless they&#8217;re forced to do it&#8230;.</p>
<p>I think that for web-based EDI products to REALLY take off, the price issue needs to be examined&#8230;.  To big companies and suppliers, the costs are easy to understand and the ROI can be easily justified &#8211; or at least explained&#8230;. but to that small mom-n-pop shop, even just a hundred bucks to set up a single trading partner and $50.00 a month &#8211; even for a seasonal account &#8211; is just too much&#8230;.  something needs to be done to make the solutions more affordable to these small companies.</p>
<p>Sorry to ramble on for such a simple question, but&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
