1. ASC X12 CHAIR REPORT Kendra L. Martin, ASC X12 Chair February 2, 1998

2. X12 Membership Remains Steady 728 782 842 838 848 600 800 1000 FY 93FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97

3. Computer 5% Consulting 9% Other 5% Software 11% Banking & Financial 6% Transportation 5% Service Industry 7% Government 8% Trade & Nonprofit Association 8% Healthcare 2% Insurance 21% Manufacturing 13% General Industry Types Comprising X12 Membership

4. $424,800 $474,000 $564,000 $464,000 $624,400 $682,900 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 FY 93FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97FY 98 Projected X12 Publications Net Revenue Grows

5. X12 Meeting Attendance 934 930 899 828 901 800 792 875 1036 831 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Feb-95Jun-95Oct-95Feb-96Jun-96Oct-96Feb-97Jun-97Oct-97Feb-98 projected

6. 195 232 256 273 295 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 19931994199519961997 X12 Draft Standards for Trial Use Published in Annual Release

7. UN/EDIFACT Messages 6 27 54 16 42 27 9 13 53 22 41 7 10 13 10 0 2030405060 Other Travel, Tourism & Leisure Transportation Statistics Social Security, Employment & Education Purchasing Product Quality Data Material Management Insurance Healthcare Finance Directory Support Services Customs Arch., Eng. & Construct. Accounting, Auditing, Reg. & Financial Info Serv.

8. X12 Data Maintenance Requests Processed 747 639 501 589 375 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 FY 94FY 95FY 96FY 97FY 98 projected

9. 80337731 10,369 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 NOV 97DEC 97JAN 98 Number of Unique Visitors Web Site Activity

10. KEY 1998 CHALLENGES u Strategic Implementation Task Group u Global EDI Standards u Six-Month Maintenance Cycle

11. SITG OBJECTIVE Make EDI technology widely available, non-obtrusive to the business process, & cost effective for all organizations METRICS: – Well-defined, consistent standards for interoperability – Off-the-shelf, commercially available tools – Separate standards development from application design & programming – Availability of training & reference solutions, e.g., leverage industry efforts – Automatic generation of EDI interactions – Separation of data definition & format from transport layer

12. SITG DELIVERABLES u Develop US action plan for implementation of next generation of EDI u Develop framework for and ensure design of architecture to support next generation of EDI u Develop appropriate bridges from current to future state u Ensure there is a single adopted EDI architecture solution for both X12 & international requirements

13. WHAT WE HAVE DONE u Formed 2/97 u Cleared deck of “history & emotion” u Confirmed that change was required u Organized to begin work – WG 1 Plan Development – WG 2 Education & Awareness – WG 3 Technical Development – WG 4 Customer Requirements & Metrics u Participating in comparable international process – Developed “Reference Guide” – Draft Project Plan

14. DUAL TRACK u Any way of doing EDI must permit current & new EDI to exist in parallel u Must define a migration path to assist user community in transition u NOT talking alignment – But we are talking “convergence”

15. WHAT IS OUR VISION? Implement Open-edi u Modeled Approach u Object-Oriented Technology The “Shrink Wrap” Solution

16. WHY OPEN-EDI? u Opportunity to lower barriers to electronic data exchange by introducing standard business scenarios & services to support them u Permits electronic processing of business transactions among autonomous organizations within & across sectors u Broadens X12’s scope in the Electronic Commerce playing field

17. BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER Standards Body for: Business Process Models and Class Libraries Software Providers for: Application Development Expertise Affordable “Plug and Play” Business Solutions for the User Community WIN - WIN

18. ISSUES FOR X12 u Change will be required  Process  Roles (users, membership, etc.)  Nature of the standards  Acceptance of convergence of all EDI standards  Level of modeling u Rapidity of change u Resource implications u External relationships  Corporate awareness & support  “Co-opetition” & liaison with other organizations u Outreach

19. SITG & X12 -- NEXT STEPS u Approve the “plan” for the Project Plan  Conduct the analysis u Technical Work  Build pilot for Catalog Order  Create business models  Create business objects u Organizational Work  Define components for standardization  Define organizational structure u Training & education in and out of X12

20. GLOBAL EDI STANDARDS u Shift in Focus from EDIFACT Integration to CEFACT Implementation u First Empowered “EDIFACT Work Group” Meeting set for 3/98 u DLTG and P&P Enhancing OPM and SD6

21. 6-MONTH MAINTENANCE CYCLE Proposal: 2 publication updates each year 2 Full X12 Meetings each year (May & Nov.) - Approve X12 Ballots & Publication Updates 2 Working X12 Meetings each year (Feb. & Aug.) - Review/respond to X12 ballot comments - Optional meetings for Subcommittees

22. WHY DO THIS? X12’s focus continues to shift from pure development to maintenance & implementation. Implications: Most users don’t need 3 publication cycles/year Most X12 subgroups don’t need 3 meetings/year Plus: X12’s current 4-month cycle does not align well with EDIFACT Working Group’s 6-month schedule

23. HOW WOULD IT WORK? Mid Feb Change Request Cut-Off Early Apr TAS Interim Meeting (Assign Change Requests) Early May FULL X12 MEETING (Ballot Package Determined) Jun 45-day X12 Ballot Period Early Aug X12 Working Meeting (Ballot Comment Response) Sep 30-day Rebuttal Ballot Period or 45-day Reballot Period Early Nov FULL X12 MEETING (Publication Authorized) Jan Annual Release is Published

24. FULL X12 MEETINGS Who Would Meet? -- SubcommitteesYes-- Steering Comm.Yes -- TAS Yes -- General SessionYes -- PRBYes DELIVERABLES:Approved X12 Ballot Package (current cycle) Approved publication (previous cycle) WORKING X12 MEETINGS Who Would Meet? -- SubcommitteesOptional, except for ballot comment responses -- TASYes-- Steering Comm.No -- PRBNo -- General SessionNo DELIVERABLES:Ballot comment responses Rebuttal vs. Reballot decision

25. ADVANTAGES  Provides flexible meeting frequency options  Reduces # meetings to attend for many people (3 to 2)  Reduces elapsed time to approve a complicated change  Allows better SC participation in maintenance ballot review  Allows better process alignment with EDIFACT  Reduces # sub-releases users have to deal with (2 to 1)  Reduces administrative costs somewhat

26. DISADVANTAGES  Increases number of meetings for some people (3 to 4)  Increases elapsed time to approve some new transaction sets  Decreases opportunities to publish new standards (3 to 2)  Requires some X12 process change

27. PATH FORWARD Feb ‘98Steering Committee decides whether to authorize an X12 member ballot Feb-JunX12 Member Ballot Jun ‘98Steering Committee decides when to implement based on positive ballot result Feb ‘99Earliest potential start-up of new process

28. THIS WEEK’S AGENDA: u Education on Strategic Implementation Task Group activities u Input into Procedures for EDIFACT Working Group and SD6 u Discussion of Six-Month Publication Cycle Proposal

29. I welcome your on-going input... martink@api.org Tel: (202) 682-8517 Fax: (202) 963-4730