nevin

My organization has a need to enable trading partner management from
within the business unit, with no I.S. involvement. I see at least 3
alternatives for doing this.

1) Give the business unit access to the Administration Console and find
a way to limit them to the relevant functionality that will be needed.
2) Build a custom interface to create / modify / delete Trading
Partners, associated ports, etc.
3) Forego use of BTAHIPAA33 trading partner management and use our own
tables / modules to manage trading partners.

I am open to any of these options, but haven't found sufficient
information to make an informed decision.

Option 1: I'm not aware of a way to limit Administration Console
functionality, and am skeptical of this method, as I would likely need
to allow administration of some ports (e.g. trading partner ports) but
not others. My feeling is one of the other options would be better.

Option 2: I am aware of the ExplorerOM classes and I believe that
employing them to create a custom interface is a reasonable option.
However, I have a concern that there may be relevant BTAHIPAA33
extensions that are undo***ented.
· Are there any extensions that I need to know to use ExplorerOM to
create parties and ports for use by BTAHIPAA33?

Option 3: This is my preferred choice, probably mainly because I've
implemented it successfully and easily before in non-HIPAA
environments. Basically, I would use the receiver and sender ID's
within the messages as keys to looking up (from my custom table) any
additional data I might need. I wouldn't have any trading partners
defined within the BizTalk management database, nor would I have any
trading partner-specific ports defined. (I would have one receive
location for messages from all the trading partners, and one dynamic
send port for outbound messages.)

But, this is where I'm really finding technical do***entation
lacking. I'm concerned that I might lose other functionality if I go
this route. (I don't think I should, but I don't know.) I will
probably discover most if not all of this eventually through testing,
but I'm looking for more immediate gratification:
· What impact, if any, will not using the base trading partner
management have on generation of 997's and TA1's?
· What impact, if any, will not using the base trading partner
management have on BTAHIPAA33 batching of outbound transactions? (I
need to batch by trading partner.)
· Are there any other negative impacts to not using the base ?

nevin

My organization has a need to enable trading partner management from
within the business unit, with no I.S. involvement. I see at least 3
alternatives for doing this.

1) Give the business unit access to the Administration Console and find
a way to limit them to the relevant functionality that will be needed.
2) Build a custom interface to create / modify / delete Trading
Partners, associated ports, etc.
3) Forego use of BTAHIPAA33 trading partner management and use our own
tables / modules to manage trading partners.

I am open to any of these options, but haven't found sufficient
information to make an informed decision.

Option 1: I'm not aware of a way to limit Administration Console
functionality, and am skeptical of this method, as I would likely need
to allow administration of some ports (e.g. trading partner ports) but
not others. My feeling is one of the other options would be better.

Option 2: I am aware of the ExplorerOM classes and I believe that
employing them to create a custom interface is a reasonable option.
However, I have a concern that there may be relevant BTAHIPAA33
extensions that are undo***ented.
· Are there any extensions that I need to know to use ExplorerOM to
create parties and ports for use by BTAHIPAA33?

Option 3: This is my preferred choice, probably mainly because I've
implemented it successfully and easily before in non-HIPAA
environments. Basically, I would use the receiver and sender ID's
within the messages as keys to looking up (from my custom table) any
additional data I might need. I wouldn't have any trading partners
defined within the BizTalk management database, nor would I have any
trading partner-specific ports defined. (I would have one receive
location for messages from all the trading partners, and one dynamic
send port for outbound messages.)

But, this is where I'm really finding technical do***entation
lacking. I'm concerned that I might lose other functionality if I go
this route. (I don't think I should, but I don't know.) I will
probably discover most if not all of this eventually through testing,
but I'm looking for more immediate gratification:
· What impact, if any, will not using the base trading partner
management have on generation of 997's and TA1's?
· What impact, if any, will not using the base trading partner
management have on BTAHIPAA33 batching of outbound transactions? (I
need to batch by trading partner.)
· Are there any other negative impacts to not using the base ?