Clickable Business Models eBusiness Education Acronyms Cross References
B2B Content Standards EC Technology Standards Glossary Implementation Guidelines
Implementation Options General Recommendations References Methodology/Legends
 Home | Copyright Notice and Legal Disclaimers | Navigation Help | Tour! | Downloads | Contact Us | Site Index | Search
Implementation Options | Technical Basics | Internet Commerce Model  | Architecture |
Implementation (Technology) Options

Electronic Commerce (EC) Technology Matrix

Format

Transport

Volume

Pros

Cons

Attributes

Paper document

USPS

Low

Universal. No training. No elaborate infrastructure.

Dual data entry. Slow delivery.

Required when original signature is needed

Paper document

Fax

Low

Readily accessible. With OCR, can fax directly into a PC.

Relatively fast. Insecure data exchange.

Good when signature is needed

Voice

Phone

Low

Universal. No training. No elaborate infrastructure.

Dual data entry. No assurances the orderer is legitimate.

Rush orders

Email document

SMTP

Medium

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

File (proprietary)

Any

High

Secure. No size limit on file.

One party dictates to the other the file format.

Trading partnership agreements (TPA). Non-standard

EDI

VAN

High

Standards-based. Secure. High volume, large files. Mature technology

Expensive. Requires a "unique" infrastructure.

TPA. Secure. Transactional integrity.

EDI

SMTP

Medium

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

EDI

Direct connects

High

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

EDI

FTP

Low

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

Low

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

XML

SMTP

Medium

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

Emerging standards. DTDs vs. schemas

Direct connects

High

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

Emerging standards. DTDs vs. schemas

FTP

Low

Uses mature transport (FTP) to put files onto another machine.

Non-secure. No guaranteed delivery.

Not recommended for external use. Non-secure

Emerging standards. DTDs vs. schemas

HTTP/HTTPS

Low

Secure if using HTTPS.

Non-secure if using HTTP. No guaranteed delivery.

Not recommended for external use. Non-secure. When firewalls prevent FTP use

Web-based forms

Internet protocol
("go-go" button)

High

 

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

USPS

Low volume, non-EC capability. Not time sensitive

Phone

Low volume alternate EC capability. Rush order

Fax

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

Email

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

EDI (proprietary)

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

Direct Connect

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

Proprietary file formats

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

EDI (standards based)

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

XML

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

 

Format

Transport

Attributes

Paper document

USPS

Low volume

Paper document

Fax

Low volume

Voice

Phone

Low volume, rush orders

Email document

SMTP

Medium volume

File (proprietary)

Any

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

EDI

VAN

High volume. TPA. Secure. Transactional integrity.

SMTP

Medium volume. No "added features", e.g., security, NRR

Direct connects

High volume. Secure. Expensive

FTP

Low volume. Not recommended for external use. Non-secure

HTTP/HTTPS

Low volume. Not recommended for external use. Non-secure. When firewalls prevent FTP use

XML

SMTP

Medium volume. No "added features", e.g., security, NRR

Emerging standards. DTDs vs. schemas

Direct connects

High volume. Secure. Expensive

FTP

Low volume. Not recommended for external use. Non-secure

HTTP/HTTPS

Low volume. Not recommended for external use. Non-secure. When firewalls prevent FTP use

Web-based forms

Internet protocol

High volume. Secure. High ROI.

("go-go" button+D24)

Last updated 02 March 2003