EDI messages going in and out of your systems

Hi everyone,

Quick question for the Acquisitions folks:
Do you ever have EDIFACT Orders flowing IN to your ILS (not OUT of your ILS)? I don’t think this is a valid use case, but want to be sure before we set it aside.

Longer question:
What types of EDIFACT messages do you send or receive between the library and your vendors currently? Here’s some types that I am familiar with:

1. Quotation (QUOTES) (vendor to library, supplying pre-order information about a purchase)
2. Purchase Order for book orders (ORDERS) (library to vendor)
3. Purchase Order Response (ORDRSP) (vendor to library) for
   a. immediate order responses
   b. status reports on outstanding orders
   c. copy-related (shelfready) data for ordered items
4. Order Change for order changes and cancellations (ORDCHG) (library to vendor)
5. Order Status Enquiry for order chasers/claims (OSTENQ) (library to vendor)
6. Despatch advice, for pre-arrival notification of delivery (DESADV) (vendor to library)
7. Invoice for billing and for credit notes (INVOIC) (vendor to library)

Thank you!

The only EDIFACT messages we receive currently are for our subscription renewal invoices.

Our ordering experts report that:

• Nope, no EDIFACT orders flowing IN.
• We currently only do #2 and #7.

Hi Ann-Marie,

Do you ever have EDIFACT Orders flowing IN to your ILS (not OUT of your ILS)? I don’t think this is a valid use case, but want to be sure before we set it aside.
VZG: No.

Longer question:

What types of EDIFACT messages do you send or receive between the library and your vendors currently?

VZG: From OCLC LBS4 (used in whole GBV) we can send EDI orders (books, standing orders, subscriptions) and order change for order changes and cancellations (ORDCHG) - (each just library to vendor)

From vendor to library (orders + invoices) we are using an offline import routine with XML formatted files.

Our Monograph Acquisitions department here at Duke relies pretty heavily on YBP’s EOCR service, and those are MARC format, right?

In Continuing Resource Acquisitions, we rely heavily on EDI invoicing from our subscription agents. The EDI invoice files are manually retrieved and loaded into the ILS.

Hi Ann-Marie,

As far as EDI is concerned we would like to see the following in FOLIO:

• Using EDIFACT invoices for billing and renewals (vendor to ILS/LSP)
• Using EDIFACT Order Status Inquiry for claims (ILS/LSP to vendor)
• Using EDIFACT Purchase Order Responses to respond to claims (vendor to ILS/LSP)

The above should be consistent with the industry EDI standards as described by EDItEUR (http://www.editeur.org/48/Serials-and-Subscription-Products/).

Thank you!

There are no EDIFACT orders flowing in our ILS.

At the moment, we are using EDIFACT invoices for billing, but not for credit notes (INVOIC) (vendor to library).

It would be very useful, if we could use the other EDIFACT messages in Folio too, especially:

• Purchase Order (ORDERS)
• Purchase Order response for status reports on outstanding orders (ORDRSP)
• Order Status Enquiry for order chasers/claims (OSTENQ)

Hi Ann-Marie,

I looked into the EDI interfaces that we currently have in place and talked to my colleagues and have two comments to your post:

Regarding your first question: “Do you ever have EDIFACT Orders flowing IN to your ILS (not OUT of your ILS)?”: I am not aware of this use case either. But we have some customers set up with a workflow where they order in our online system and the order data gets back into their system using MARC.

Regarding the different types of EDI messages:
I dont see anything missing in your list from our point of view. Priority would be on the message types ORDERS, ORDCHG, OSTENQ and INVOIC.

Thanks,
Sebastian

@Sebastian notes ordering in the online system and the order data coming back via MARC - I’m not sure if Cornell is one of these for you, Sebastian, but we have a couple of setups like that.

They don’t involve EDI on our end; we generally get the files via FTP, and then have local scripts that do different things to the MARC, and to the resulting system-generated POs, depending on which vendor we’re getting it from.

Yes, you are right. You are describing the workflow I was thinking about. Thanks

Hi all,

I was really slow to review and reply to these answers. Thank you, everyone, for your replies. They are really helpful.

Everyone confirms what we thought: the concept of EDI order messages flowing into an ILS is not appropriate.

And the mix of EDI messages used is pretty consistent.

In terms of FOLIO, the highest priority EDI is likely receiving Invoices from vendors, then sending Orders from FOLIO. Other EDI messages would follow at some point after those.

And of course, this is also in the context of much acquisitions data (order details, invoice details) also flowing into FOLIO via other types of records and processes as well, e.g. MARC records with 9xx data, API messages, etc.