RE: [ubl] Scoping business work items for UBL

["Duvekot, Kees" <kduvekot@Wehkamp.nl>]

Tim,

I looked at your email and the re-drawn UBL 2.1 Use-Case diagram.

My first remark is that the full SCOR model is not open and freely available. Because of that it might not be a good model to use as the underlying structure for an open and free UBL model.

I was not aware of the SCOR model so my following remarks are based on the limited information that I can find about it freely online.

To me it looks like the planning part of the SCOR model is something that spans all the 3 main parts of the model. SO you need to plan your sourcing, make and delivery and return constantly. Using that logic you can also fit CPFR into either the sourcing or delivery part .. to get input/output for the make process. And that is also true for the planning of the delivery process where you would like to know your transportation options before actually shipping goods)

That UBL currently does not cover the make part makes sense because it looks like that is modeled as an "internal" process within the company, where UBL is all about "external" communication.
In the model there is also a "return" section that in fact should be on both sides (so return as part of returning sourced parts and also return as part of receiving back delivered part).
And extending this 

Also the SCOR model looks to be more about "physical items" where UBL can also be used for "services" and other non physical items. So we might need to be carefull with extending this too far.
I also find it curious that there are many SCOR concepts around procurement, but non or very few around delivery. Is that because we have few UBL documents related to it? or does the model go into more detail for the "sourcing" part? I can not tell without more detail/docs around SCOR.

Although you say that you move more to a "Buy-Pay-Ship" in reality it is still Buy-Ship-Pay ... the pay part during e-commerce is a "prepayment" as a way for the seller to have some garantee that he will be payed when the goods are shipped. That is also why you still get invoices with the goods .. and the payment is separated from the invoicing part.

I do like the clear separation between the various UBL documents that you have drawn now and the responsible sub-committees for maintaining them going forward. 

Just my input for this discussion ... which I think is a good one .. 

Kees


________________________________________
Van: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org [ubl@lists.oasis-open.org] namens Tim McGrath [tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 21 april 2015 5:47
Aan: 'ubl@lists.oasis-open.org' Language
Onderwerp: [ubl] Scoping business work items for UBL

In working through a draft charter for the proposed new subcommittee I have been considering using what is known as the Supply Chain Operational Reference Model (SCOR) as the underlying structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-chain_operations_reference).  Using such a framework helps us to be consistent and hopefully align with industry practices.  As UBL adoption is moving from mainly Governmental to Industry users this makes more sense.

Based on this I re-drew the UBL 2.1 Use Case diagram to fit the SCOR terminology.  I then plotted the scope of each business domain Subcommittee based on this revised set of Use Cases (see attached).  The Key to this is that the Green circles are SCOR concepts (pale Green are areas we don’t currently cover), the Blue are current UBL 2.1 use cases, the Yellow are the processes covered in UBL 2.1, the Pink is the old Buy-Ship-Pay (redundant).

I suspect this is a useful roadmap for now and into the future (areas not yet covered by our work).  But there are a few things to point out:

1. The Buy-Ship-Pay we used to follow is now more like Buy-Pay-Ship or Buy-Ship-Pay.  this seems sensible as often in eCommerce you Pay before you Ship.  In SCOR they consider Billing as part of Procurement in the sense you are procuring the money/credit to do business.

2. The proposed new Pre-Award subcommittee covers both Quotation and Tendering.

3. The current Procurement Subcommittee should be renamed Post-Award.

4. CPFR does not fit in any current Subcommittee so we could consider this a general UBL process until such point we have other Planning activities.

5. This identifies the areas of intersection between the Subcommittees. Such as Catalogue Provision (between Pre- and Post-Award) and Fulfilment and Status Reporting (between Post-Award and Transportation).

I would like to put this to the TC for discussion before we finalise the terms of reference for the proposed new subcommittee(s).
[cid:CDC01D65-4C50-47F0-B844-87F70B17A56E@gateway.2wire.net]
-----------------
Regards
Tim McGrath
tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com<mailto:tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com>
Fremantle, Western Australia 6160
AUSTRALIA
Phone: +61438352228
Skype: t.mcgrath

Attachment: Slide1.jpg
Description: Slide1.jpg