At last week’s CIDX meeting here, BASF and Elemica presented learnings from their implementations, while Aspen Technologies outlined a number of dynamics it has encountered in implementations for its clients. The consensus of the three was straightfoward: it’s the little things that will trip you up, but the second implementation is significantly faster and easier than the first.

Bob Majowicz, Senior Business Analyst at BASF, presented his observations in the form of a Top 10 list. In keeping with his theme of “The Top Ten Things That Go Wrong,” Majowicz’s list had 14 items.

The vast majority of the items on Majowicz’s list were small but important details – items such as “your partner must supply the correct IP address” and “you must provide your partner with the correct URL.” “It’s amazing,” Majowicz said, “but this is the kind of basic information that is routinely entered incorrectly.” It’s also helpful, he said, if digital certificates are updated rather than expired.

Most of these problems can be avoided, Majowicz said, if trading partners will carefully complete and exchange the new CIDX Trading Partner Enablement Form. The form, posted on the CIDX Web site (www.cidx.org), prompts partners to collect and properly enter such basic information as connectivity parameters, framework information, URL and IP addresses. The form also allows other documents to be embedded in it; BASF has gotten into the habit of embedding its digital certificates and digital signatures directly into the form for future reference.

The most common problem, he said, is that setup information cannot be migrated from test to production. “It’s a complete do-over,” Majowicz said. “CERTS and IP addresses are unique and actual framework components are not migratable.”

To address this problem, he said, CIDX has created a new tool called HelloPartner. Used exclusively for tests, HelloPartner avoids the problem of creating a dummy transaction and sending it to a partner who has to arrange to ignore or delete it upon receipt.

The most important thing for implementers to remember is that the second implementation is significantly easier than the first, he said. BASF’s first implementation, accomplished with Dow, took more than three months. A subsequent implementation with another partner who also had the experience of having implemented before was accomplished in just 10 days. “The standard is real and its working,” Majowicz said. “There’s a steep learning curve, but once you do it once, the second time is much easier. I compare it to a merry-go-round. It’s tough to jump on a moving merry-go-round, but once you’re on, going from horse to horse is easy.”

Majowicz called on vendors to provide better out-of-the-box support for Chem eStandards in their software, something several vendors are working to offer. He praised SAP, calling the experience of implementing Chem eStandards within SAP “phenomenal. People used to dread implementing EDI with SAP, but I can tell you that implementing Chem eStandards is far easier.”

Jason Shefrin, Direct of e-Business Standards for AspenTech, said that its experience with a variety of customers shows that implementation problems tend to fall into one of three categories: automating business processes, maintaining competitive differentiation and arriving at legal considerations and agreements.

In terms of automating business processes and maintaining competitive differentiation, Shefrin recommended that chemical companies choose vendors who have designed flexibility into their systems. Such systems should provide translation capabilities, for example, to bridge different companies’ varied product and location codes. The same is true for maintaining competitive differentiation, he said. A solution should allow a user to start small by achieving connectivity, but offer the ability to bolt on value-added services over time to achieve product and service differentiation.

The biggest stumbling block has little to do with technology, however, Shefrin said. “Generally, the holdup comes in the form of legal considerations and agreements. We’re talking about new ways of doing business that require new legal agreements. The lawyers need time to figure out how to protect your interests.” He urged companies to get their legal counsel involved early so that agreements can be developed and in place when the technology is ready to be turned on.

Paul D. Wood, Manager of Solutions Engineering for Elemica, said much of the hub’s focus on Chem eStandards has been on providing translations and a standard approach to business rules for its members. Elemica does not try to dictate to its members how to do business, Wood said. Instead, it has tried to implement standard operating procedures that allow different ways of doing business to coexist in an automated setting.

For example, Wood said that Elemica users were confused about which element in CIDX documents should be used to specify a specific unloading point at a plant. Elemica specified that its users should always include that data in “Shipper Instructions,” a guideline CIDX just adopted in version 2.0.2 of its standard. The same was true with Payer Account Information. CIDX had listed it as a required data element, even though many buyers and sellers don’t routinely include that information. In version 2.0.2, that element is now optional.

In an Order Response Message, users were confused about what data must be included. For its members, Elemica has agreed that confirmed price, shipment terms and payment terms are required fields. Similarly, members wanted to know how a seller should code a Response Order if the Sales Order has been placed on credit hold. Elemica ruled that sellers have two options: they can delay response until the credit hold is removed, or they can indicate Product on Hold or PH in the Line Status Code of the Order Response.

By agreeing on how all members are to handle such issues, Elemica creates consistency without dictating specific business processes to its members, Wood said. When appropriate, Elemica raises common issues with CIDX and proposes solutions, such as those incorporated into 2.0.2 of the Chem eStandards.

CIDX plans to continue to invite members to share their implementation experiences and learnings with the group at future meetings.