Electronic Commerce (EC) Technology Matrix

Low Volume

Transport / Format	Pros	Cons	Attributes
USPS Paper document	Universal, No training. No elaborate infrastructure.	Dual data entry. Slow delivery.	Required when original signature is needed
Fax Paper document	Readily accessible. With OCR, can fax directly into a PC.	Relatively fast. Insecure data exchange.	Good when signature is needed
Voice Phone	Universal, No training. No elaborate infrastructure.	Dual data entry. No assurances the orderer is legitimate.	Rush orders
EDI FTP	Standards-based. Uses mature transport (FTP) to put files onto another machine.	Non-secure. No guaranteed delivery.	Not recommended for external use. Non-secure
EDI HTTP/HTTPS	Standards-based. Secure if using HTTPS.	Non-secure if using HTTP. No guaranteed delivery.	Not recommended for external use. Non-secure. When firewalls prevent FTP use
FTP Emerging standards. DTDs vs. schemas	Uses mature transport (FTP) to put files onto another machine.	Non-secure. No guaranteed delivery.	Not recommended for external use. Non-secure
HTTP/HTTPS Emerging standards. DTDs vs. schemas	Secure if using HTTPS.	Non-secure if using HTTP. No guaranteed delivery.	Not recommended for external use. Non-secure. When firewalls prevent FTP use

Medium Volume

SMTP Email	Digital source. Not necessary to re-key data. Any type of data can be sent.	Non-secure. Not guaranteed delivery. Limits on size of document to be sent intercompany.	Electronic format
SMTP EDI	Standards-based. Secure. Uses existing email infrastructure.	Expensive. Requires the use of software at each end to deencrypt secure email attachments. Requires the use of an ISP (Internet Service Provider).	No "added features", e.g., security, NRR
SMTP XML	Ability to extend standard on-the-fly. Utilizes existing email infrastructure.	Requires the use of an ISP (Internet Service Provider). Limited in size of transmission. No guaranteed delivery.	No "added features", e.g., security, NRR

High Volume

File (proprietary)	Secure. No size limit on file.	One party dictates to the other the file format.	Trading partnership agreements (TPA). Non-standard
EDI VAN	Standards-based. Secure. High volume, large files. Mature technology	Expensive. Requires a "unique" infrastructure.	TPA. Secure. Transactional integrity.
EDI Direct Connects	Standards-based. Secure. High volume, large files. Mature technology	Expensive. Requires the use of a leased T1 line. More complex setup than VAN-based EDI.	Secure. Expensive
Direct connects Emerging standards. DTDs vs. schemas	Ability to extend standard on-the-fly. Uses a leased line for secure transmission.	Expensive. Requires the use of a leased T1 line.	Secure. Expensive

Technology Matrix Notes

Protocols

• Catalog Services
• XML
• Web
• FTP
• HTTP / HTTP/S
• OBI
• Web-to-EDI
• Fax-to-EDI
• EDI over the Internet
• Message brokering

• Low volume, non-EC capability. Not time sensitive

Phone

• Low volume alternate EC capability. Rush order

• Low volume. Alternate EC capability. Rush order where signature or visibility is required. Can use bar codes

• Medium volume. Glue binding two systems together. Limited EC capability.

• High volume. Trading partnership agreements (TPA). Non-standard.

• High volume. Secure data transmissions; non-secure systems. Non-standard.

• High volume. Very secure data transmission over direct connect. Secure systems. Non-standard.

• High volume. Standards enforced. Possible to have third party support.

• Undefined volume. Non-standard. Cost of entry also unknown.