Choosing a standard for EDI invoices

[GingerJames]

Hi all.
I work in IT for a UK packaging manufacturer. Although we are global, our particular business is predominantly in the UK and mainland Europe.
We have a new requirement to send electronic invoices, and our customer is using a third party electronic invoice intermediary who claim to accept any format. This means we are in the unusual position of being able to choose a standard for ourselves.
I would like to choose one that will be most widely acceptable to our customer base to avoid major changes in future, if and when we send electronic invoices to other trading partners. The time isn't right for us to dabble with XML, and my experience (only 2 years) is in EDI.
I am familiar with both TRADACOMS and EDIFACT, predominantly the latter. With a pan-European customer base, I believe that EDIFACT is likely to be the most appropriate. I have heard that the EDIFACT invoice message can double as a credit note, whereas credit notes are dealt with seperately in TRADACOMS. Within EDIFACT, I have heard from the same source that D97A may be the most widely used (as compared to version 9 for TRADACOMS).
So after all that background waffle, my questions are:
- Do you agree that EDIFACT D97A would be our best bet, or what alternative do you suggest?
- For your preferred format, can you advise which segments to include/ exclude, or point me to some commonly used guidelines?
Thanks to anyone who can spare the time to help!
Cheers
GingerJames

 

[parthipan]

I think EDIFACT D97A is a good, well used standard version. I have recently set-up D99A messages for a customer. The reason we chose D99A instead of D97A is that D99A is the next stable and used standard version to D97A. This was done for the supplier messages and because our customer could dictate the standard and version used.

 

[Crimson74]

Hi GingerJames,

Well, you've outlined most of the advantages of EFIFACT over TRADACOMS yourself already. Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of segments; even though your trading partners allows you to send an invoice in any format, they still should provide you with some kind of specification documents of what they kind of information want to receive in the invoice file.

 

[sayeers]

Find out if your trading partners can transact in a particular standard. Since you seem to be 'bending' toward the customer need, I am afraid you would be developing both EDIFACT and TRADACOM maps pretty soon. This is true with versions as well, unless you publish your won Implementation Guide for Invoice and direct your customers to follow that (which almost never happnes). Well, Its tough to be supplier.

Since standard is a standard, I would not worry my self much with them, but rather deal with the mapping solution it self and capturing all the business data requirements into the Invoice.


Good luck with your e-adventure.

 

[GingerJames]

Hi.

Thanks to parthipan, Crimson74 and sayeers for responses so far.

To clarify our situation: this is our first customer to request electronic invoices, and because they have chosen a third party to process them who can accept any format, we can choose the standard ourselves. The customer's only stated requirement so far is that all the data that currently appears on paper invoices will appear in the e-invoices. Given that under normal circumstances we would be expected to use a new customer's standard, I am trying to select the one with which we would most likely be presented in future. That isn't to say that we wouldn't at least try asking them to follow ours first.

My understanding is that the EDIFACT standards are pretty exhaustive, and it is common to implement cut down versions. For example, we use the EANCOM subset of D96A for several messages (not invoices) as requested by another customer, and even then there are unused segments. Perhaps I'm being slightly lazy, but I was hoping to find some sort of implementation guide for a widely used message to get me started so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Would anyone like to extol the virtues of D97A or D99A, or throw another standard into the mix? Is anyone adopting any of the newer standards? Perhaps someone can point me to an implementation guide?

Thanks for any further help on offer.

Cheers, GingerJames

 

[BRADENSTOKE]

Don't forget 98B
I have had experience of INVOIC messages from several trading partners and all seem to be different, although purporting to be EDIFACT. Even two versions from different departments of the same company !
With different laws in european countries regarding electronic payments, the INVOIC message as is, doesn't fit the bill.
However, I do know that a new EDIFACT INVOIC is under development which will enable uniform trading in Europe at least.


Frank.

 

[bertiewooster]

Hi

Just to set our perspective:

We're UK based and heavily involved in B2B integration for our Clients, especially between EDI flavours and other systems that do not use EDI intrinsically. We're working with everything from blue-chip multinationals down to the small supplier/customer trying to connect into the loop.

There is huge pressure by the U.S. for all trading to move away from European standards (e.g. TRADACOM) and adopt either EDIFACT or, more commonly, to drop EDI altogether. There have been several major corporations who have "informed" their trading partners of just such moves. This pressure is internal to the UK too, where movement away from EDI and VANs is likely to become quicker.

Although you have stated that this is not the time for you to get involved with XML etc., I think that may be exactly the right move.

To avoid reinventing the wheel, as you put it, there are many, many off-the-shelf XML schemas covering every trade sector including yours I'm sure, as well as generic formats.

Not only are they easy to implement, but they can be exchanged more cheaply, simply and flexibly than EDI.

You can also adopt EDI Internet standards using XML and a variety of Internet based, secure, guaranteed transports.

XML is platform agnostic, this allows systems developed to utilise it also to be platform agnostic, so that you can emplace cheap, reliable, platform independent solutions to add further future tolerance.

XML is, in our view, where it is going; if not now, then soon. Many will either move voluntarily at their own pace or be forced down this road.

 

[Crimson74]

Bertiewooster, that's what they said about XML 3 years ago as well...
I haven't seen XML taken off yet in the area of exchanging business information with external partners. We have hundreds of trading partners and only a couple wanted to do XML. The rest chooses either EDI or flatfile formats. People complain it is too unclear, too many standards, files are too big etc. to name just a few. The way things are going is AS2 and EDI over the Internet. You are right in saying that people are trying to move away from VAN's but sometimes people think that VAN's and EDI are one and the same thing. EDI is just another structure to carry information with, just like a flat file, XML or CSV. It is not specifically bound to be only send over a VAN. XML is and will probably mainly be used to transfer information between internal data bases.

 

[ma0934]

Hi all

Can anyone direct me to where I can find the specs of the "TRADACOM 89" and "TRADACOM 93" standards?

Many thanks in advance

ma0934

 

[GingerJames]

Probably best to try and make contact with someone via

http://www.ana.org.uk/home.asp

The website doesn't appear to have any detail, perhaps because they're championing the EDIFACT/EANCOM standards, but they may be able to point you in the right direction.

Good luck, cheers, GingerJames

 

[ma0934]

Dear Ginger James - Thanks for your help

ma0934