Two years ago I was involved in a research project studying supply chain integration via B2Bi between telecommunications operators and OEMs. I co-authored with researcher Jouni Kauremaa and professor Kari Tanskanen from the Helsinki University of Technology an article that provides a case study of RosettaNet. This article was based on the in-depth analysis of supplier-customer dyads between one OEM as a supplier and six operators as customers. Before the research project three operators already had RosettaNet in production with the OEM. One of them had abandoned EDIFACT.  Moreover, one operator tried and one succeeded to bring RosettaNet into use during this project, while one operator was planning to replace EDIFACT with RosettaNet.

Is there any value in replacing an operational EDI-based integration with a RosettaNet-based integration? This depends on the type of the underlying business process in question.  In the context of B2Bi the business processes can be divided into exploitative applying to processes with a considerable amount of B2Bi implementations (e.g. ordering) and explorative applying to processes with a little or no prior B2Bi implementations (e.g. ticketing). The relative benefits of RosettaNet are greater in business processes previously unexplored in the industrial context. On the other hand, in areas where B2Bi has already been done, it is questionable to replace EDIFACT only for the purpose of replacing a previously working implementation to be done with RosettaNet.

The case study also points out the limits of RosettaNet. The case appears more complex than just putting B2Bi as given by RosettaNet in place. The results of this study suggest that RosettaNet is an important component in realizing supply chain integration via B2Bi but not sufficient in itself. In particular, RosettaNet does not remove the need for interorganizational agreements and business process adjustments.  In the context of the study the exchanged products could be ordered on multiple levels (OEM’s sales items versus sales packages). Only after the orderable item was defined for both parties on the level that was least complex (sales packages encapsulating a number of sales items), was B2Bi beneficial. RosettaNet has an advantage over EDIFACT, when the RosettaNet Technical Dictionary that defines related product data is used in combination with the Global Trade Item Number and United Nations Standard Products and Services Code. Interestingly, however, within the case study the chosen approach was the use of bilateral agreements. Further, in instances where B2Bi has been made beneficial for both parties, complementary investments have been made in middleware tools to adapt a misaligned process and backend system enhancements. Even with a customer less willing to change its process, there is something a supplier can do. The OEM’s insight was to develop a middleware tool that helps to adapt the varying operator specific processes to OEM’s internal processes (e.g. allocating an order to a proper contract in the ERP system).

Finally, the study implies that OEMs constitute only a small portion of operators’ transaction volume, compared to their transaction volume with network construction companies and other operators. Thus, the specific standard (e.g. RosettaNet) is less relevant for operators. Furthermore, the operator may not want to develop and cultivate in-house resources for B2Bi, rather, it chooses to resort to a B2Bi service provider. In such a situation, there is a risk that the parties are stuck in discussions of who should pay for the B2Bi service provider.