SEEBURGER BIS Previous Solutions

Nigel Mills
Team Lead at a transportation company with 201-500 employees
We were already doing EDI previously and using OpenText as a communication platform, as a VAN (value added network). The problem with OpenText is that they'll pass through your messages and the dealings that we've had with them, but they don't really do the message conversions and the like. And we are looking to expand quite a lot in terms of trading partners in the coming years using EDI. With SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS), we can just send one message between us and SEEBURGER and they will do all of the hard work with the trading partners. Whereas previously, with OpenText, if each trading partner had a slightly different variant of EDI, we would have to make the adjustments ourselves. Also, all of the EDI conversion into our ERP was actually done using a bolt-on to our ERP. Because we're moving to SAP at some point, that bolt-on was not compatible. But that is where I gained my experience, because I had to create the mappings between the EDI messages and our core internal procedures. The move away from our old solution was about the scalability. Previously, I was spending a lot of time doing the mappings myself, as well as the onboarding and dealing with all of the headaches related to that. In addition, because we're moving to a system that doesn't have that EDI bolt-on, which is the SAP solution, we needed to find an alternative. Finally, because we wanted to rapidly increase the number of trading partners that we're connected with, we would have had to take on an additional resource. That's where the price-benefit came in. View full review »
Naresh Shetty
Integration Specialist at a logistics company with 10,001+ employees
We were using IBM Mercator which they now call WebSphere. The move to SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) started because at that time the company wanted to check into systems which could support new interfaces. The system we had was an old system, so we needed to upgrade it. It was a choice the business had to go through but I wasn't involved in the team that handled the selection. View full review »
Materials Management Team Lead at a university with 10,001+ employees
We had a legacy system called Enterprise Solutions, and it was a healthcare-specific procurement and inventory system that was born in the late 1980s. When we decided to go to SAP in the early 2000s, our legacy system was going to be sun-setted. We had to do something because our then-current product was dying. When we decided to go with SAP, it did not natively deliver the EDI functionality. We went and got SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS), we bolted the two together, and moved forward. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Seeburger, IBM, Axway and others in Business-to-Business Middleware. Updated: March 2020.
406,070 professionals have used our research since 2012.
EDI Competency Manager North America at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
We had a couple of previous solutions. One was Cleo LexiCom. We also had something called EDI Gateway and that's what we were using mainly, prior to this one. SEEBURGER is an SAP partner. When we bought SAP, because we were going with one global ERP system, our operation in Europe chose SEEBURGER at the time. I was not part of that decision but I'm happy to say they made a good choice. View full review »
Michael Osiecki
Partner For Experience & E-Business at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
We had an older version of webMethods, which was not an EDI translator. Comparing SEEBURGER BIS vs webMethods, the latter was just a communications broker. We knew we needed to switch for a long time. We got to the point where we could no longer upgrade that platform or do anything else because of the heavy customization and programming that had been done to it. View full review »
IT Solutions Business Analyst Team Lead of Sales and Distribution at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
It was ten years ago, but we were using a solution called Sterling Commerce. We switched because of cost. When we made the decision to go with SEEBURGER, our key selection criterion was that the company had history, that it was an established company. But they were also involved in developing our solution so we thought it was a bigger risk to go with another supplier. View full review »
Integration Team Lead at Wincanton
We were previously using Mercator as the transformation tool, but it was very old at the time and needed replacing as it was unable to provide SFTP. View full review »
VP Digital Services at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
We used to have a different solution. At the time that we bought this tool, we had also acquired another company. That company used to use a different tool. And for us, we were just using AS/400. We were trying to go to a better system that had more EDI capabilities. With the AS/400 we did not have a lot of capabilities that we were looking for in an EDI tool. SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) fit very well with what we were looking for in the solution that we wanted to have in our company. View full review »
Enterprise & Tech Ops Hosting Svcs at a pharma/biotech company with 10,001+ employees
We switched mostly because of efficiency and cost reasons. Our previous solution required a lot more development and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) is a much more configuration-driven solution. View full review »
Lori Knox
Business Analyst at a tech company with 51-200 employees
We went to SEEBURGER because we needed a global solution for the first time in our company's history. Up until then, each plant used to use its own EDI solution, because we had our own ERP solution. We switched to SEEBURGER to have a global solution. View full review »
Richard Lehane
Head of IT at a pharma/biotech company with 201-500 employees
We were not previously using another solution. When SEEBURGER BIS came onboard, we changed our ERP systems so they were pretty much in parallel with that. View full review »
Corporate Director of IT at Flexfab
We used their competitor. This product does the same thing that the previous product did, ten years ago. But the competitor said they were going to stop doing business and supporting the Baan ERP system. So we had to switch and we selected SEEBURGER because they were a recommended EDI partner with Baan software. We migrated all of our EDI maps to SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS), from their competition, and then we had to modify them, ever so slightly, to get them to work. View full review »
SAP Global EDI Lead at a construction company with 10,001+ employees
The company was using an IBM platform. It was the next step away (replacement) from the previous ADI platform that we were using. While I was not onboard at that time, from what I understand, an extensive review was done, not only with SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS), but with other platforms which they were using with IBM in-house models. The result of that review, including testing, was that they decided and settled on SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). View full review »
IT Director, Business Applications Technical Services and Integration at Aryzta
We did previously use other solutions, legacy systems. This was 10 years ago. View full review »
Giridhar Duvvuru
Director at Mylan Inc.
We procured this software to replace webMethods. View full review »
Systems Architect EDI/B2B at a tech services company with 5,001-10,000 employees
We used the TrustedLink Enterprise (TLE) solution. We switched because the product did not provide all the features that we needed to grow our eCommerce platform. The SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) was one of a few which provided translation for various formats, communications, and integration into SAP, all under one hood. View full review »
Director, Application Development at a retailer with 501-1,000 employees
We switched from Dell AtomSphere. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Seeburger, IBM, Axway and others in Business-to-Business Middleware. Updated: March 2020.
406,070 professionals have used our research since 2012.