ASC X12 CHAIR REPORT Kendra L. Martin, ASC X12 Chair February 8, 1999

X12 Membership FY 93FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97FY 98

White = States with 0-5 Members Light Turquoise = States with 6-15 Members Turquoise = States with Members Sky Blue = States with Members Blue = States with Members Dark Blue = States with 51+ Members ASC X12 Members by State

General Industry Types Comprising X12 Membership Consulting 11% Other 7% Software 14% Transportation 7% Computer 7% Banking & Financial 8% Government 7% Service Industry 7% Healthcare 13% Insurance 12% Manufacturing 7%

X12 Publications Net Revenue Grows $424,800 $474,000 $564,000 $464,000 $578,500 $607,300 $635,000 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 FY 93FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97FY 98FY 99 Projected Net Surplus

X12 Meeting Attendance

X12 Draft Standards for Trial Use Published in Annual Release

UN/EDIFACT Messages Travel, Tourism & Leisure Transportation Social Security, Employment & Education Product Quality Data Material Management Directory Support Services 0 Other Statistics Purchasing Insurance Healthcare Finance Customs Arch., Eng. & Construct. Accounting, Auditing, Reg. & Financial Info Serv.

X12 Data Maintenance Requests Processed Projected

KEY 1999 CHALLENGES u Six-Month Publication Cycle and Revised Procedures u Next Generation EC Standards

6-Month Publication Cycle Proposed Schedule Changes 4 meetings each year: Feb, May, Aug, Nov 2 publication updates: following May & Nov meetings 4 maintenance cycles each year No interim TAS meetings Proposed Process Changes Re-designate DSTU’s as X12 Standards Treat new Transaction Sets as maintenance to X ballot periods each year: 30 days vs. 45 days Eliminate rebuttal ballots in favor of Open Forums

Benefits of Adopting this Proposal  Improves quality of the standard  Reduces cycle time for simple changes  Retains consensus process  Provides flexible meeting options  Allows better process alignment with EDIFACT  Reduces publication updates (3 to 2)  Reduces TAS meetings (6 to 4)

Drawbacks of Adopting this Proposal  Makes meeting attendance difficult to plan  Potentially requires Subcommittees and PRB to meet 4 times/year  Requires some X12 process change  Puts heavy reliance on DISA staff processes

Membership Reaction to Proposal  60 members responded to survey (out of 761 surveyed)  30 responders included suggestions for change  Broad agreement with process changes but resistance to schedule changes

Proposed Path Forward Feb 99StC* conducts straw poll on balloting of schedule changes Feb/Jun 99X12 member review/comment on OPM/SD2 changes Jun 99 StC authorizes 2 ballots on Schedule & OPM/SD2 changes Jun/Oct 99X12 member ballots on Schedule & OPM/SD2 changes Oct 99StC decides whether/when to implement schedule changes StC confirmation of OPM/SD2 ballot Feb 00Earliest potential start-up of new schedule and/or process * Steering Committee

1/99 Steering Committee SITG Decisions u Continue the active leadership role in UN/CEFACT in defining the next generation of EDI standards u Pursue the concept of OO-edi development as the next generation of EDI standards u Begin defining an organization to support the next generation of EDI standards development process within X12 u Proceed with the SITG Demonstration Project

SITG Day of Presentations 8:30-10 amIntroduction to SITG and Status Report amOpen edi, UML Modeling & Object Technology 11 am-noonRepository 1-2 pmSITG Demonstration Project 2-2:30 pmTowards the New Millennium (UN/ECE) 2:30-3 pmUML to XML Mappings 3-4:30 pmX12 Impact, Open Issues & General Discussion

THIS WEEK’S AGENDA: u Discussion of Six-Month Publication Cycle Proposal – Schedule Changes – Process Changes u Education on Strategic Implementation Task Group activities