The Death Trap in Product Information Management: Your Customer/Supplier Portal

There is a tendency when deploying Product Information Management (PIM) solutions, that you may want to add a portal for your trading partners:

  • If you are a manufacturer, you could have a customer portal where your downstream re-sellers can fetch the nicely arranged product information that is the result of your PIM implementation.
  • If you are a merchant, you could have a supplier portal where your upstream suppliers can deliver their information nicely arranged according to your product information standards in your PIM implementation.

This is a death trap for both manufacturers and merchants, because:

  • As a trading manufacturer and merchant, you probably follow different standards, so one must obey to the other. The result is that one side will have a lot of manual and costly work to do to obey the strongest trading partner. Only a few will be the strongest all time.
  • If all manufacturers have a customer portal and all merchants have a supplier portal everyone will be waiting for the other and no product information will flow in the supply chains.

This topic was discussed in the post PIM Supplier Portals: Are They Good or Bad?

Trap

Data Monetization in Business Ecosystems

Frank Diana has over the years written a lot of splendid articles on the business ecosystem theme. The latest post is called Monetization Strategies in Emerging Ecosystems.

In here Frank has this question: Do ecosystems represent an opportunity to establish non-traditional revenue streams (e.g. monetizing data)?

I think so. One example very close to me is how merchants, shippers and manufacturers can work closely together in not only moving the goods between them in an efficient way, but also moving the product information between them in the most efficient way.

This opportunity for traditional ecosystems (or value chains if you like) was recently examined in the post called Wrapping Data Around Tangible Products.

Data Monetization by Wrapping Data Around Products

Vendor Master Data Management Musings

In multidomain Master Data Management (MDM) we often focus on the two most frequently addressed domains being Customer MDM and Product MDM.

However, managing the critical data elements that describes the vendors to an enterprise is increasingly being on the agenda in MDM implementations.

Buy Side MDMHandling vendor master data shares a good deal of the same challenges as with customer master data, as we are describing real world entities that have a role as a second party to our enterprise. In more cases than what often is acknowledged, vendors may also have a role as a customer or other business partner roles at the same time. In my eyes, we should handle vendor master data as a subset of party master data as described in the post about How Bosch is Aiming for Unified Partner Master Data Management.

The self-service theme has also emerged in handling vendor master data as self-service based supplier portals have become common as the place where vendor master data is captured and maintained. Where making the first purchase order or receiving the first invoice was the starting point for vendor master data in the old days, this is often not the case anymore.

By the way: The self-service theme also spreads to when we are going to receive information about the products the vendors are supplying to you as told in the post called PIM Supplier Portals: Are They Good or Bad?

Wrapping Data Around Tangible Products

There are three kinds of data monetization: Selling data, wrapping data around products and utilizing advanced analytics leading to fast operational decision making. These options were examined in the post Three Flavors of Data Monetization.

If we look at the middle option, wrapping data around products, and narrow it down to wrapping data around tangible products, there are some ways to execute that for supply change delegates, not at least if the participating business entities embraces the business ecosystem where goods are moved through:

  • Manufacturers need to streamline the handling of product information internally. This includes disciplines as PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) and PIM (Product Information Management). On top of that, manufacturers need to be effective in the way the product information is forwarded to direct customers and distributors/wholesalers and merchants as exemplified in the post How Manufacturers of Building Materials Can Improve Product Information Efficiency.
  • Merchants need to utilize the best way of getting data into inhouse PIM (Product Information Management) solutions or other kind of solutions where data flows in from trading partners. Many merchants have a huge variety in product information needs as told in the post Work Clothes versus Fashion: A Product Information Perspective. On top of that a merchant will have supplying manufacturers and distributors with varying formats and capabilities to offer product information as discussed in the post PIM Supplier Portals: Are They Good or Bad?.
  • Shippers may extend their offerings from moving the goods between manufacturers and merchants (or directly to end users) to also moving the information about the goods as suggested in the post New Routes for Products. New Routes for Product Information.

The end goal is that the buyer personas in self-service scenarios will be able to make a fact based and full informed decision as pondered in the post Where to Buy a Magic Wand?

Magic wand 3

Work Clothes versus Fashion: A Product Information Perspective

Work clothes and clothes for private (and white collar) use are as products quite similar. You have the same product groups as shoes, trousers, belts, shirts, jackets, hats and so on.

However, the sales channels have different structures and the product information needed in sales, not at least self-service sales as in ecommerce, are as Venus and Mars.

Online fashion sales are driven by nice images – nice clothes on nice models. The information communicated is often fluffy with only sparse hard facts on data like fabrics, composition, certificates, origin. Many sales channel nodes only deal with fashion.

Selling work clothes, including doing it on the emerging online channels, does include images. But they should be strict to presenting the product as is. There is a huge demand for complete and stringent product information.

Work clothes are often sold in conjunction with very different products as for example building materials, where the requirements for product information attributes are not the same. Work clothes comes, as fashion, in variants in sizes and colors. This is not so often used, or used quite differently, when selling for example building materials.

At Product Data Lake we offer a product information sharing environments for manufacturers of work clothes and their merchants who may have a lot of other products in range with different product information requirements. We call it Product Data Syndication Freedom.

Work Clothes versus Fashion

How Manufacturers of Building Materials Can Improve Product Information Efficiency

Building materials is a very diverse product group. Even within a manufacturing enterprise there may be considerable variances in what kind of product information you need for different product groups. If production is taking place on plants around the world, then local demands and cultural differences is another source of diversity in how product information is handled.

In many cases building materials are not sold directly to end users, but are forwarded in the supply chain to re-sellers being distributors/wholesalers, merchants and marketplaces. These trading partners each have their range of products and specific requirements for product information which makes it very hard for the manufacturer to prepare product information that fits all.

The IT enabled discipline aimed at solving such challenges is called product data syndication. There are namely these three kinds of product data syndication relevant to manufacturers:

  • Enterprise wide product data syndication aiming at linking, transforming and consolidating product information created by various business units and production sites around the world. The goal is to have consistent, accurate and timely information ending up in one place, often being an in-house Product Information Management (PIM) or Master Data Management (MDM) solution.
  • Ecosystem wide product data syndication push aiming at providing product information to re-sellers in a uniform way. On the other hand, it should be possible for the diverse crowd of re-sellers to pull that information adhering to each one’s requirements for format, completeness and conformity at a certain time.
  • Ecosystem wide product data syndication pull also in many cases applies to a manufacturer. It is not unusual that a manufacturer complements the own produced product range with special products supplied from other manufacturers, where product information must be provided by those. In addition to that manufacturers buys raw materials, spare parts for machinery and other products where product information is needed when the surrounding processes should be automated.

At Product Data Lake, we offer a solution to these challenges. We emphasize on these capabilities:

  • Product Data Quality aiming at improvements of completeness of product data, as well as the accuracy, timeliness, consistency and conformity of the product information shared with trading partners and end users.
  • Product Data Syndication Freedom, as the solution is suited for consolidating enterprise wide diversities and pushing information to trading partners in a uniform way while making it possible for trading partners to pull the product information in their many ways.

Learn more about the solution and the benefits for manufacturers of building materials on the Product Data Push site.

Materials

New Routes for Products. New Routes for Product Information

One of the news this week was that Maersk for the first time is taking a large container ship from East Asia to Europe using a Northern Route through the Arctic waters as told in this Financial Times article.

Arctic route

The purpose of this trip is to explore the possibility of avoiding the longer Southern Route including shoehorning the sea traffic through the narrow Suez Canal. A similar opportunity exists around North America as an alternative to going through The Panama Canal.

Similar to moving products and finding new routes for that we may also explore new routes when it comes to moving information about products. Until now the possibilities, besides cumbersome exchange of spreadsheets, have been to shoehorn product information from the manufacturer into a consensus-based data portal or data pool from where the merchant can fetch the information in accurate the same shape as his competitors does.

At Product Data Lake we have explored shorter, more agile and diverse new routes for that. We call it Product Data Syndication Freedom.

Making Your MDM Vendor Longlist and Shortlist

Various analyst firms are making more or less periodic reports with vendor rankings and recommendations for the Master Data Management (MDM) market.

The latest one from Constellation Research is their Constellation ShortList™ Master Data Management authored by R “Ray” Wang.

The public part of the Q3 2018 report reveals 6 shortlisted vendors among over 15 evaluated ones.

Shortlist

Some viable solutions among there indeed.

PS: If you would prefer not to start with a generic shortlist, you can compile your relevant longlist and weighted shortlist based on The Disruptive Master Data Management Solutions List.

MDM Hype Cycle, GDSN, Data Quality, Multienterprise MDM and Product Data Syndication

Gartner, the analyst firm, has a hype cycle for Information Governance and Master Data Management.

Back in 2012 there was a hype cycle for just Master Data Management. It looked like this:

Hype cycle MDM 2012
Source: Gartner

I have made a red circle around the two rightmost terms: “Data Quality Tools” and “Information Exchange and Global Data Synchronization”.

Now, 6 years later, the terms included in the cycle are the below:

Hype Cycle MDM 2018
Source: Gartner

The two terms “Data Quality Tools” and “Information Exchange and Global Data Synchronization” are not mentioned here. I do not think it is because the they ever fulfilled their purpose. I think they are being supplemented by something new. One of these terms that have emerged since 2012 is, in red circle, Multienterprise MDM.

As touched in the post Product Data Quality we have seen data quality tools in action for years when it comes to customer (or party) master data, but not that much when it comes to product master data.

Global Data Synchronization has been around the GS1 concept of GDSN (Global Data Synchronization Network) and exchange of product data between trading partners. However, after 40 years in play this concept only covers a fraction of the products traded worldwide and only for very basic product master data. Product data syndication between trading partners for a lot of product information and related digital assets must still be handled otherwise today.

In my eyes Multienterprise MDM comes to the rescue. This concept was examined in the post Ecosystem Wide MDM. You can gain business benefits from extending enterprise wide product master data management to be multienterprise wide. This includes:

  • Working with the same product classifications or being able to continuously map between different classifications used by trading partners
  • Utilizing the same attribute definitions (metadata around products) or being able to continuously map between different attribute taxonomies in use by trading partners
  • Sharing data on product relationships (available accessories, relevant spare parts, updated succession for products, cross-sell information and up-sell opportunities)
  • Having shared access to latest versions of digital assets (text, audio, video) associated with products.

This is what we work for at Product Data Lake – including Machine Learning Enabled Data Quality, Data Classification, Cloud MDM Hub Service and Multienterprise Metadata Management.

Three Flavors of Data Monetization

The term data monetization is trending in the data management world.

Data monetization is about harvesting direct financial results from having access to data that is stored, maintained, categorized and made accessible in an optimal manner. Traditionally data management & analytics has contributed indirectly to financial outcome by aiming at keeping data fit for purpose in the various business processes that produced value to the business. Today the best performers are using data much more directly to create new services and business models.

In my view there are three flavors of data monetization:

  • Selling data: This is something that have been known to the data management world for years. Notable examples are the likes of Dun & Bradstreet who is selling business directory data as touched in the post What is a Business Directory? Another examples is postal services around the world selling their address directories. This is the kind of data we know as third party data.
  • Wrapping data around products: If you have a product – or a service – you can add tremendous value to these products and services and make them more sellable by wrapping data, potentially including third party data, around those products and services. These data will thus become second party data as touched in the post Infonomics and Second Party Data.
  • Advanced analytics and decision making: You can combine third party data, second party data and first party data (your own data) in order to make advanced analytics and fast operational decision making in order to sell more, reduce costs and mitigate risks.

Please learn more about data monetization by downloading a recent webinar hosted by Information Builders, their expert Rado Kotorov and yours truly here.

Data Monetization