Final Battle for the Illusive Power Plant Safety Pizza

Power Plant Men

The Electric Shop had tried for three years to win the Safety Slogan of the Year award.  Not because we thought we were safer than any of the other teams at the coal-fired power plant in North Central Oklahoma, but because we really liked pizza (see the post: “When Power Plant Competition Turns Terribly Safe“) .  When the plant was downsized in 1994, the electric shop no longer existed as it had before.  We had become cross-functional teams (See the post: “Crossfunctional Power Plant Dysfunction“).  It looked as if our dream of winning the Power Plant Safety Pizza was no longer in our grasp.

My carpooling buddy, Toby O’Brien had moved from our plant as a Plant Engineer to the Safety Department in Oklahoma City.  He was working with Julia Bevers and Chris McAlister.  Chris had also moved from our plant as a labor crew hand…

View original post 1,891 more words

Managing EDI Changes

The standardized format of EDI documents has been a boon to both retailers and suppliers, providing common grounds for communications and efficiency. Retailers are, in many ways, in the driver’s seat when it comes to EDI – you tell the suppliers what you want and how you want it, and they fall in line.

That’s the theory, at least.  But if you’re in charge of EDI standardization and compliance, you know there’s a lot more to it.

Compliance with the X12 standardized format is crucial to getting the most of your supply chain, but while EDI transactions are standardized, other differences may complicate matters.

Business specifics typically decide the definition of incoming and outgoing documents for each retailer. Trading partners monitor document design via published EDI implementation guidelines; these can be easily followed upon receipt of inbound transactions and the subsequent creation of outbound transactions.