I’m pretty excited about the kickoff this Wednesday of the GS1 EPCglobal Software Action Group (SAG) Discovery Services Work Group which will take the business and technical requirements that were collected by an earlier group and turn them into an actual standard.  This will be the first new major technical standard GS1 has started for quite a few years.  The most recent kickoff I can remember was the GS1 Drug Pedigree Messaging Standard (DPMS) which kicked off back in late 2005 and completed in January 2007.  The GS1 Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) standard effort kicked off in late 2004 and completed in April 2007.  That gives you an idea of how long these things take.

The effort to create the business and technical requirements for Discovery Services started just about two years ago and completed this past December.  How long will it take to get to a ratified standard?  The GS1 Discovery Services Work Group Charter predicts it will be done in June of 2011, but predictions in charter documents are notoriously optimistic.  The EPCIS Charter predicted that standard would be ratified in August of 2005, for example—one third the time it actually took. 

This is not a bad thing in my opinion.  A Charter document needs to estimate how long the effort will take, but once things get rolling, GS1 EPCglobal takes as long as needed to get the standard right.  So how long will this one take?  Based on how long the requirements took, I’m guessing the development of this standard will take some time.  Right now, I’d guess it will be complete sometime in early 2012.  That would be two years.  Hmmm….  Almost feels too short.  We’ll see.

Standards development can be contentious.  If it’s done right, that is.  I’m talking about contentiousness along the lines of the Lincoln-Douglas debates or the crafting of the U.S. Constitution, only pitting different technical approaches against each other.  The GS1 EPCglobal SAG facilitation crew really knows what they are doing when it comes to facilitating contentious groups so the blood, sweat and tears invested are directed in a positive direction and results in a valuable standard in the end.  I worked with Mark Frey in the development of DPMS and I just can’t say enough good things about him.  According to the charter document, Mark will be involved in the Discovery Services group, as will Giselle Ow-Yang—a great start.  From these choices you can tell GS1 EPCglobal places a lot of importance on the success of this effort.

BUT WILL DISCOVERY SERVICES HOLD ANY VALUE FOR PHARMA?

Right now, I don’t think the pharma supply chain will be able to make use of Discovery Services for regulatory compliance with current or even future pedigree laws.  As far as I can tell, I’m the only person I know who sees it that way so let me explain.  It comes down to what Discovery Services is aimed at and how that differs from what pedigree laws are trying to accomplish.  There seems to be a disconnect between what people think a pedigree law is trying to accomplish and the reality.  That leads them to the misconception that something like Discovery Services has value for compliance.

I reach this, perhaps shocking conclusion from the following analysis.

FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF COMMERCE

In my first substantive essay in this blog I pointed out what I called a fundamental law of commerce.  That is, when regulations mandate that a product’s value is determined by the ability to show, at any time, specific information about the product’s history, then the buyer of that product must receive all of the necessary information from the seller at the same time the product is received.  That information is so intertwined with the product’s value that it actually becomes part of the product itself, and needs to move with it.  Supply Chain companies who buy products can’t rely on previous owners to hold information on their behalf without a contract to do so if the total value of those products depends entirely on the instant availability of that information at any unpredictable moment. 

This is the case with drugs in supply chains that operate under pedigree regulations.  If a regulatory inspector arrives at the door of one of these companies and asks to see the pedigree of any item they happen to pick randomly from the inventory, and the company cannot produce the pedigree because they are unable—for any of a myriad of reasons—to collect it from remote databases controlled by upstream trading partners, that item has zero value and the company should expect to be fined, or worse. 

When this scenario happens, more than likely the pedigrees of a lot of other units will also be unavailable at the same time for the same reason.  This single inspection at the wrong time–when an earlier owner’s database is, coincidentally, unavailable–could result in a significant part of the company’s inventory being impounded, large fines imposed and the opening of a wider investigation.  All because essential information was not in the control of the party that was responsible.

So, a distributed pedigree doesn’t work in a regulated supply chain.  But why doesn’t this issue get discussed more in industry groups that are trying to figure out how to create an interoperable, standard approach for the industry to follow to meet the current and future pedigree laws?  It’s because of a very interesting thing about this “fundamental law”:  for the most part, it has no impact on drug manufacturers. 

They don’t buy drugs, so, even if a distributed pedigree were selected as the industry solution, they would almost never need to access data on anyone else’s server to reconstruct a pedigree.  All pedigrees from their perspective are entirely stored on their own servers because they start them.  Because of this fact, drug manufacturers won’t “feel” this problem with a distributed pedigree.  Only wholesalers and pharmacies will “feel” it because they buy drugs from upstream trading partners.  Right now the pharmacies are not participating much in the search for a solution, and the number of wholesalers involved is not great.  The largest representation is from the manufacturing segment.

THE DEPUTIZED SUPPLY CHAIN

More recently I posted an essay on the “deputization” of the pharmaceutical supply chain by regulators.  This is a recent phenomenon where regulatory agencies have begun to require supply chain member companies to monitor the supply chain themselves.  It comes from the realization of two things by the regulators:

1. the supply chain is too massive for regulatory enforcement officers to inspect anywhere near enough transactions to detect illegitimate behavior;
2. the responsibility for supply chain security rests with the participants and not just with the regulators.

When you put these two concepts together, the only natural conclusion is that supply chain participants must self-monitor and report suspicious activity.

You can see this deputization in the way the Florida and California Pedigree Laws are written.  They both require companies who buy drugs in the supply chain to receive a pedigree for every drug purchased (although in Florida, wholesalers who buy directly from the manufacturer are allowed to initiate pedigrees).  They also require the recipient to check those received pedigrees for errors, inconsistencies and omissions—all before they are allowed to put the drugs they purchased into regular inventory.  Any irresolvable discrepancies must be reported and the drugs must be quarantined pending further investigation.

I hope it’s obvious to you that the buying company must have all of the prior supply chain history—the pedigree— of every drug before they can properly perform this analysis and before they can confidently place it into usable inventory.  Theoretically you could accomplish this with a network of distributed information servers, but the full set of pedigree data would also have to be passed down the supply chain, along with the drug, in addition to it being distributed.  However, the official pedigree—the one that companies and regulators would rely on—would remain the information that is passed.

THE POINT OF DISCOVERY SERVICES

On their website, GS1 EPCglobal answers the question, “What is ‘Discovery’?” this way:

“’Discovery’ is finding and obtaining all relevant visibility data, of which a party is authorized, when some of that data is under the control of other parties with whom no prior business relationship exists.”

They view the benefits of Discovery Services to include:

“Enable trading partners to discover all of the resources who may have information about things (who has data about EPCx? Where is their EPCIS located so I can ask about this data about EPCx?)                  

“Enable trading partners to exchange data in a secure way with parties that they may not have a prior direct business relationship                  

“Will ensure each party retains rights of ownership of its visibility data                  

“Will ensure that queries are authorized and authenticated”                  

Clearly Discovery Services has a value if your supply chain can get away with distributing visibility data across the supply chain, but I’ve already dismissed the utility of this approach for pedigree compliance above.  But if a push-model is used for compliance instead, what value are these benefits? 

THE TRUE VALUE OF DISCOVERY SERVICES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN

When you look at the future Discovery Services standard through this analysis, how can you conclude that it will contribute any value to pedigree compliance?  I don’t, but lots of other people, who have not seen my analysis, do.  But how about value from non-compliance uses?

When you think about it, the concept of pedigree—or chain-of-custody/ownership—is a historical view back “up” the supply chain, as viewed from the perspective of where a drug is right now.  That fulfills one side of the concept of “track and trace”.  Different people define that concept in different ways, but I subscribe to the group that believes that “trace” is the capability that is encased in the concept of “pedigree” (thus the name of my blog:  RxTrace).  In my view, a push-model pedigree completely fulfills the definition of a “trace”, but it does nothing to enable the other side of the coin:  “track”. 

“Track”—a consolidated forward view of exactly where drugs are right now in the supply chain from the perspective of previous owners—has value for things like recalls, regional emergency response, manufacturer production planning and wholesaler purchase planning to name a few. 

Tracking drugs may also make an important contribution to supply chain integrity by helping to detect diversion, theft and duplication of unique identifiers by counterfeiters, depending on the adoption model.  This is where the real value of Discovery Services lies for the pharma supply chain.  But tracking of drugs, and the use of Discovery Services as part of the implementation, has some thorny data ownership issues that will have to get solved.

So why am I so excited about the kickoff of the Discovery Services standard development work group?  I want to help find a way to solve those thorny data ownership issues that stand in the way of some of these “track” applications.  I think they will exist in all supply chains but perhaps pharma’s use case has the most thorns.  If we can find the right technical solution to that issue I think the supply chain will find the value in Discovery Services… It just won’t come from pedigree compliance. 

If you’ve stayed with me by reading this far, then you should join me on the work group.

I’ve been an active GS1 participant since EPCglobal was first acquired by GS1 in 2003. It is an interesting organization, often both vital and frustrating at the same time. GS1 is a single source for essential supply chain standards that have global applicability. Rather than attempting to dictate those standards they invite people and companies to work with them on the definitions and the application of their standards. They have really great facilitators for some of their work groups with the very best being Mark Frey and Gena Morgan. The quality of their standards documents is quite high. And they have some really smart people in their EPCglobal Architectural Review Committee (ARC), notably Ken Traub, John Williams and Sanjay Sarma.

My hope is that this blog will be of some value to both members and non-members of GS1, but, I can only cover topics related to the organization and their public documents. Specific details about work group activities cannot be covered. However, I do not think that is too limiting and I think members and non-members will find something of interest.

GS1 is a not-for-profit member organization. The way it is organized reminds me of something out of the UN with affiliate “Member Organizations”, or M.O.’s—one for each country in the world—which participate in developing and maintaining their global standards on behalf of end-user companies within their borders. End-user companies are also able to represent themselves … if they can afford the membership fee which is based on company global revenue (and that’s on top of the fees paid for use of your GS1 Company Prefix). Consequently, standards development proceeds mostly with input from employees of GS1 affiliates and from employees of large corporations. There are notable exceptions and GS1 has made a significant effort to recruit participation from hospitals and smaller pharmacies, traditionally under-represented because they are small.

My own experience as one of those employees of an end-user member company, who has participated in standards-making work groups and the end-user groups within GS1 and EPCglobal, has been very positive. I have met and collaborated with a wide range of very smart people from my own industry and others, from the U.S. and from around the globe. I’ve learned a lot about supply chains in general and about how to perform the kind of “techno-negotiations” necessary to move forward a work group of people with very diverse backgrounds and interests toward a positive conclusion. Sometimes it’s thrilling. Sometimes it’s aggravating. It’s always a lot of hard work, but I highly recommend it to anyone considering it.

GS1 also runs “adoption” end-user groups out of their M.O.’s. The purpose of these groups is to encourage the adoption of GS1 standards within the country that the M.O. represents. For example, the GS1 U.S. Member Organization operates the GS1 Healthcare U.S. group which has work groups targeted at accelerating the adoption of GTIN, GLN, GDSN and Traceability the GS1 way in the healthcare sector. These work groups do not work on standards, but they work on guidelines for use in applying those standards to solve various supply chain problems within the U.S. (also known as “toolkits”).

Actual standards have traditionally been developed in two different sub-organizations of GS1: EPCglobal and GSMP (Global Standards Management Process). GS1 is currently in a state of transition as they move the standards development arm of EPCglobal into GSMP. That’s a good thing, because these two organizations have had different approaches and, at times, seemed to operate as two independent organizations. Unfortunately, in my view, EPCglobal’s process operated better than GSMP. So far I am encouraged by the little evidence I have seen that they are retaining the good parts of the EPCglobal approach. We’ll see how far it goes.

One very commendable thing that EPCglobal has done that GSMP has not is to make their ratified standards documents freely available for download on the internet. The GSMP approach is to roll all of their diverse standards into a single and very large document known as the “GS1 General Specification” (or, “GenSpec”) and they’d like to charge you for a copy of it. Fortunately there are enough M.O.’s around the world that make it available that you can usually find a copy for free download by simply Googling it. I hope that the merged GSMP does not fold the individual EPCglobal specifications into the GenSpec and keep them hidden until you pay, but I must admit, even ANSI and ISO charge for their ratified standards documents.

GS1 also has a lobbying arm which applies pressure to governments around the world to adopt policies that are favorable to GS1 and the technologies that their standards are based on. For example, they applied considerable effort to get governments around the world to open up RF frequency bands around 915MHz so that UHF passive RFID tags could operate worldwide without violating the law somewhere. They have been very successful in that effort, as I understand it.

Another example of GS1 lobbying is when they act as technology experts before U.S. state and federal regulatory agencies. Here GS1 provides guidance toward the adoption of regulations and laws that can be met through the use of their standards. I get a little concerned about this type of lobbying because I fear that GS1 makes themselves out to be unbiased when, in fact, they do have a bias. I hope these agencies are aware of that and take it into consideration.

GS1 will be a frequent topic of this blog since they are focused on the same “intersection” as I am (see the tag line for this blog on the masthead).