The encyclopedia · Software & IT · Strategic decision · 1998–2002
The electronics industry built RosettaNet so supply chains could talk in one XML language
In 1998 about 30 major IT players—Cisco, IBM, Intel, Microsoft—launched RosettaNet to standardize how supply chains exchange orders, inventory and product data.
RosettaNet Consortium
the move
RosettaNet grew out of Fadi Chehadé's experience at distributor Ingram Micro, where linking to partner 3Com produced an interoperable catalog that 'could not be replicated.' In 1998 he became CEO of the nonprofit consortium, which aimed to define 'a language for electronic business for the computer sector.'
CNET reported in June 1998 that about 30 major players launched a two-year push to implement the standards; the 28-member executive board included American Express, Cisco, Compaq, FedEx, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Netscape and UPS, with ABB, Toshiba and others abroad. XML was to be the common tongue.
The target was build-to-order: standardized descriptions, part numbers, pricing data, credit checks, inventory status, order status and order acceptance flowing through the supply chain. RosettaNet deliberately recruited senior executives rather than mid-level standards writers to get high-level buy-in, and pulled in groups like NIST and CompTIA as partners.
why it works
- Custom EDI links were expensive and could not be replicated across partners.
- A common XML vocabulary made 'build to order' work end to end.
- Executive board seats forced companies to commit, not just send engineers.
- Nonprofit structure kept one vendor from owning the standard.
what transfers
When integration is the bottleneck, stop writing one-off links: a shared, open dictionary and process standard lets the whole industry plug together once and reuse everywhere.
what came after
RosettaNet's partner interface processes became a widely used e-business standard in electronics and semiconductors; in 2002 the consortium merged into the Uniform Code Council (now GS1 US), which still maintains the standard.
references
spotted an error? The archive wants to know.