Posts Tagged ‘GS1’

Last week I published an essay that gave GS1 some advice on how to trigger interest in adoption of their Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN).  Those of you who read that essay in the first two days read my snarky comments about GS1 seemingly attempting to commandeer the term “Data Quality” to include the need for GDSN.  That was based on a mis-interpretation of their marketing materials for their “Data Quality Framework” and as soon as I discovered my mistake I removed that part of the essay, leaving the core point of the essay intact (see “An Open Letter to GS1, RE: GDSN Marketing”).

In fact, GS1 is saying exactly the opposite of what I originally thought regarding Data Quality and GDSN.  That is, before you start publishing your supply chain master data (SCMD) through GDSN you should ensure that the quality of your data is high.  As GS1 points out, “Good quality data is foundational to collaborative commerce and global data synchronisation.”  I couldn’t agree more.

The GS1 Data Quality program is centered on the “Data Quality Framework”, which is Read the rest of this entry »

Dear GS1,

How have you been?  I’ve been fine, done a bit of writing since we last met and gotten a little greyer.  How are the kids?  My two kids are doing great but I have to admit, after raising two I don’t know how you do it with 125 kids, or whatever the number of M.O.s there are today.

The reason I’m writing to you today is to offer you my thoughts on your Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN) Marketing campaign.  That campaign would be more effective if it focused on demonstrating the distinction between internal master data (and programs associated with improving its quality), and externally shared master data (and the significantly different kinds of programs needed to improve its quality).  And especially to show that many (most?) of company master data is, in reality, externally shared master data, either incoming or outgoing.  That’s the step that I see missing from your campaign.

Companies who are already familiar with the kind of programs that are designed to improve their internal master data need to be taught to see the special characteristics of Read the rest of this entry »

Most Warehouse Management Systems (WMS) available on the market today do a fine job of allowing their users to manage inventories in the warehouses of drug manufacturers, distributors and chain drug stores.  A WMS is a software system that may be a part of a larger Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, or it may be a third-party application that is interfaced with the owner’s ERP system.

All WMS systems that I am aware of are intended to be sold into multiple industries, not just in pharma.  That’s so that the WMS vendor can maximize their sales.  The more industries, the more sales and the more profitable it is.  Because some industries have long had serial numbers on some of their products (computers and peripheral equipment, cell phones, electronics, medical equipment, appliances, etc.) WMS vendors have included serial number handling in their software for decades.  In fact, I would bet that a serial number handling feature was included in WMS systems since the very beginning of that category of software.

However, buyers of WMS systems in the pharma supply chain should be very careful not to confuse a “serial number handling” or even “serialization” checkbox on the WMS vendor’s spec sheets with the kind of “serialization” they will need for compliance with modern pharma serialization regulations.  I include Read the rest of this entry »

Any company wishing to make use of GS1 standards—including their barcodes, identifiers and data exchange standards—must first obtain a GS1 Company Prefix, or “GCP”.  Normally you would obtain a GCP by applying to the GS1 Member Organization (M.O.) in the country where your company headquarters resides, but if you are a pharmaceutical company that makes drugs for the U.S. market, regardless of where you are located, you will need to obtain a special GCP from GS1 US, the GS1 M.O. in the United States.

That’s because currently, drugs sold into the U.S. market must contain a linear barcode that encodes your U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) National Drug Code (NDC).  To properly encode that NDC into a GS1 barcode symbol, you must register with GS1 US the GS1 GCP that matches the FDA-assigned Labeler Code that is a part of every NDC.  Only GS1 US can assign/register a GCP that matches your FDA-assigned Labeler Code.  I explain all of this in more detail in my essay “Anatomy Of The National Drug Code”.

Companies may end up with more than one GCP over time for several reasons.  For example, if a drug company is based in Switzerland, merged with another pharmaceutical company in France a few years ago and sells pharmaceuticals globally, they may end up Read the rest of this entry »

Back in 2007 the U.S. Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) and it was signed into law by President Bush.  One of the provisions of that law was an instruction to the FDA to “…develop standards and identify and validate effective technologies for the purpose of securing the drug supply chain against counterfeit, diverted, subpotent, substandard, adulterated, misbranded, or expired drugs”, and “…develop standards for the identification, validation, authentication, and tracking and tracing of prescription drugs.”

The FDA fulfilled these instructions for one of the specific standards that the law identified when the agency published their Standardized Numerical Identifier (SNI) standard back in 2010.  That standard was fairly high level and for the vast majority of drugs, use of GS1’s Serialized Global Trade Item Number (SGTIN) (or “GTIN plus serial number”) for drug package identification would comply with it.  The text of the FDA’s standard says as much.

By defining the SNI in this way did the FDA surrender the development of the real SNI standard to GS1 (at least the sNDC portion of it)?  I don’t think so.  In my essay about the SNI standard I described it as the FDA “aligning” with GS1’s SGTIN (see my essay “FDA Aligns with GS1 SGTIN For SNDC”).  Alignment shouldn’t be confused with surrender.  The choice of alignment with SGTIN was good for the FDA, good for patients and good for the industry.

WHAT WE GOT WHEN THE FDA ALIGNED THEIR SNI STANDARD WITH GS1’S SGTIN TECHNICAL STANDARD

In the case of the SNI aligning with GS1’s SGTIN we got the following things: Read the rest of this entry »

Over the last year in GS1, in many of the members of the U.S. pharma supply chain and even in the FDA, the focus has turned to the analysis and discussion of three classes of electronic pedigree models:

• Fully Centralized,
• Semi-Centralized, and
• Fully Distributed.

I’ve discussed some of the pros and cons of these models here in RxTrace too (see “The Viability of Global Track & Trace Models”, “Should Regulations Dictate Technology?”, and “Could This Be Your Future Track & Trace/ePedigree Exchange Solution?”).

One of the characteristics included in many of these discussions is the “points of failure” of each model.  For example, I’ve heard it said several times that the Fully Centralized model suffers from a “single point of failure”, with the implication being that Fully Distributed models do not have this problem.  In fact, this is incorrect and in reality, both the Fully and Semi-Centralized models are much less likely to fail than models that fall within the Fully Distributed category when “failure” is defined as not being able to provide an ePedigree on demand in any given instance.

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS

Wikipedia has a pretty good article on Reliability Engineering so I’ll spare you the background of the discipline that studies points of failure.  The mistake people sometimes make Read the rest of this entry »