Network of Networks Share Group Spring Update

Wrap-up
For the Supply Chain Leader Who Wants to Rise Above

Supply Chain Insights LLC Copyright © 2017, p. 2
Just Started
To be Presented to the
F4SS Group
Contract Manufacturing
Price Management
Scoped. New Partner.
Wrigley/Mars replaces
Dow Agrosciences.
Material Provenance
Looking to Apply ALEI
to Gt Nexus and
Elemica
Onboarding Pilot
Meeting with German
Bank Next week
European Multi-tier
Finance Pilot
Four Pilots
Movement
Logistics pilot dropped for now.

• Europe: June 25th-26th in Hanau, Germany hosted by Evonik
• North America: July 16th-17th TBD (Charlotte or Chicago)
Next Meeting(s)

• Finish test plans (Kevin, Peter, and Christine) for pilot work by June
3rd
-Pitch to F4SS (contract manufacturing case)
-Solidify Mars work with BerryGlobal
• Linked In Group
• #NONWOW selected as tag. (N4N was nude for nudes.)
• Share updates on pilots in July face-to-face
• Develop “Spark Presentations” by Innovative Technologists (Lora)
• Socialize: Blog posts/Linkedin/and Dictionary Work (Lora/Sheri)
Next Steps

First Friday of each month at 9:00 EST
Monthly Calls
Month Focus
May Review work from Meetings with
the larger group
June Feedback on May 7th, European
meeting.
Sharing of Test Plans of North
American Pilots
July Check-in on Pilot Testing. Prep
for North American face-to-face.

Schedule Meetings Between E2open, GT Nexus and
Elemica to Explore these 6 Components
1 – Partner Discovery
2 – Physical Transport Protocol
3 – Transaction Standards
4 – Master Data Synchronization
5 – Partner Commercial Readiness & QA
6 – Network Business Models

• 1. Blockchain technology is new and evolving. It is over-hyped. There is more
unknown than known. We cannot find any use cases that demonstrate the use of
blockchain for many-to-many networks. As a result, to build many-to-many
capabilities, we are testing the use of blockchain to link Supply Chain Operating
Networks (Elemica, E2Open, GtNexus/Infor, SupplyOn and Ariba).
• 2. Interoperability between existing Supply Chain Operating Networks today is
very limited. There is more connectivity between GTNexus/Infor and Elemica than
other nodes. This is an area of opportunity.
• 3. While the group believes that there is great value for growth, improving
business continuity and driving revenue through new business models in the
building of network of networks. Today, there is no definitive ROI. We have five
active case studies. We will use the insights from these case studies to define the
potential ROI.
• 4. Data definition is important. The group’s understanding of industry standards
has evolved. The greater use of GS1 and ISO standards is an opportunity for all.
Four Truths

• ¼ Spark Sessions
• ¼ Updates (Standards development, market development)
• ¼ Pilot work
• ¼ Wrap-up, Reflection and Next Steps
The goal is to educate to innovate.
Business and technology leaders as equals designing multi-tier
processes.
Meeting Design

Desired
Outcome/Learnings from
EU Blockchain Pilot

EU Blockchain Pilot Constraints
• We are going to test only
• Set up a virtual environment, covering Customer, Vendor, Logistic partner and
Bank
• Use of ISO identifiers for partners and articles
• Open and sharing
• No Charging

Current idea and process for the EU pilot
• Can the Invoice verification and validation process be optimized, best
automated?
• Can we automate payments based on the smart contract?
• Increase visibly in the supply chain by using blockchain technology
• Is it meaningful to pair electronic messaging and Blockchain to get the
best from both worlds?
• How does a blockchain operate in a many to many environment?
• What are the RACI’s for multiple nodes in a many to many
environment?

BASF BUYS FROM
EVONIK
IN ELEMICA
SMART
CONTRACT
FOR
MATERIALS
EVONIK TENDERS
TO
IMPERIAL IN
ELEMICA
N1
SMART
CONTRACT
BETWEEN
EVONIK &
IMPERIAL
N1
IMPERIAL PICKS UP &
DELIVERS
POD 100% N1
SC DELIVERY
COMPLETE
ELEMICA HANDS
OVER
TO CROSSINX
N2 BANK
PAYMENT
POSSIBLE BLOCKCHAIN PROCESS FLOW
N
1
= ELEMICA
N
2
= CROSSINX
BANK
PAYMENT
ELEMICA HANDS
OVER
TO CROSSINX
N2SC MATERIALS
COMPLETE

Desired Outcome/Learnings from EU Blockchain Pilot
• Multi-Party/Cross Process Automation
– BASF is Buyer
– Evonik is Supplier
– Carrier
– Evonik and Carrier payment triggered by proof of delivery and governed by smart contract
– Bank
•
• PARTICIPATING TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES:
•
• Elemica – SC Integration
• Crossinx – Payments
• Centrifuge – Blockchain setup and node. Elemica node hosting TBD.
– This looks like a hybrid Public/Permissioned architecture based on Ethereum
•
• POC LEARNING OBJECTIVES
•
• Document the key benefits provided by Blockchain vs Trusted Third Party (TTP).
– As a decentralized architecture, Blockchain will always be slower and more expensive than a
Centralized Trusted Third Party. This is a technical fact.
– Possible/typical reasons to choose blockchain over TTP:
• Are there unknown participants in the use case?
• Are all participants trusted?
• Is public verifiability required?

• Understand transaction costs
– Public component
– Private component
• Does transaction size impact cost
• Cost to execute the contract
• Examine the error handling process
– E.g. if there’s a mistake in the POD (under received). How is the contract re-
executed
• Understand the API/Integration approach:
– How will the blockchain networks transactional API’s be defined?
• Will they be defined based on an existing standard?
• Will we create a new standard?
• Governance: probably beyond the scope of this POC but as an output we
should understand how this could work:
– Who permissions entities
– Who’s responsible for deciding who runs a node
– Who handles support

• Evaluate if Invoice verification and validation can be optimized or
even automated
• Evaluate many to many blockchain with multiple nodes and their
Roles and responsibilities
• Can payments be automated based on smart contracts
• Can electronic messaging and Block chain technology be used to
complement each other rather than to be looked at as competing
technologies?
• Can public and private block chain work together and increase value
• Improve visibility in the supply chain by using blockchain technology
• Blockchain based decision making in an many to many envornment

Project Team
Project lead:
Heinz Günther Lux Evonik and Ralf Kahre BASF
Technology partners:
Crossinx, Elemica. Centrifuge
Logistics Partner
Imperial
Bank: DZ Bank

Project Team: BASF
Project lead:
Ralf Kahre BASF (back up TJ Fahrenkopf)
Strategic Supply chain:
Florian Kache
Bastian Kennel
Michael Goldschmidt
Business:
Depending on product selected
Procurement depending on product selected

Next Steps
Meeting May 07 at Frankfurt DZ Bank location will be communicated
Physical meeting to define pilot:
Roles and responsabilities
Timeline
achievables

Network of Networks Pilots
Update: 2018-05-02

Revision
Date Description
2018/01/23 Updated member list
2018/01/23 Added data model
2018/01/23 Added example of Formation record data
2018/01/24 Added example of ALEI prefix
2018/03/28 Revised data model
2018/03/28 Replaced example of Formation record data with hyperlink to www.eALEI.org
2018/03/28 Replaced example of ALEI Prefix with hyperlink to list
2018/03/28 Added slide with ISO 8000 definitions
2018/03/28 Added slide with ISO 8000-116 requirements
2018/04/04 Updated model
2018/05/02

• What will be tested?
– Availability, and accuracy of shared common core trading partner data
• How will it be tested?
– Loading and validating common core trading partner data provided by
pilot participants into a central registry
– Testing of manual name search and retrieval of shared common core
trading partner data
– Testing of Application Programmer Interface (API) for retrieving shared
common core trading partner data
Pilot Test Plan

• What is the timetable of the pilot?
Timetable
Date Description
End Jan First telephone meeting of project participants
(Biweekly telephone progress meetings thereafter)
End Feb Sample vendor master data provided by pilot participants
• Agreement on common core data and definitions
End Mar
Hosted central register of common core trading partner data
available for testing
April 24-
26
Demonstration of central register of common core trading partner
data at Network of Networks Spring 2018 meeting
June
Demonstration of updated register of common core trading partner
data and network provider API at Network of Networks Summer
2018 meeting
Sept 4-7 Presentation of results at Supply Chain Insights Global Summit

• Who are the members of the group? What are the roles?
Members
Lora Cecere Observer lora.cecere@supplychaininsights.com
Regina Denman Observer regina.denman@supplychaininsights.com
Peter Benson Member Peter.Benson@eccma.org
Navala, Marko Member marko.navala@sap.com
Kumar, Anand K Member anand.k.kumar@intel.com
David Hume Member david.t.hume@intel.com
Joshua Perkins Member joshua.perkins@intel.com
Stacie Hall Member stacie.hall@intel.com
Jay Russell Member jay.j.russell@intel.com
Van L Bicknell Member BicknellVL@Corning.com
Ralf Kahre Member ralf.kahre@basf.com>
Betty Parston Member Betty.Parston@schneider-electric.com
Brian Tessier Member brian.tessier@schneider-electric.com
Tom Sorgie Member tom.sorgie@infor.com
Hiedi Benko Member heidi.benko@infor.com
Chandrashekhar Khambete Member chandrashekhar.khambete@e2open.com
Wilkie, Carrie Member CWilkie@gs1us.org
Cindi Hane Member cindi.hane@elemica.com
Rich Katz Member rich.katz@elemica.com
Trevor Miles Member tmiles@kinaxis.com
Scott Rockafellow Member scott.rockafellow@monsanto.com
Sheron Koshy Tech support sheron.koshy@eccma.org
Jonathan Roelofsz Content support jonathan.roelofsz@eccma.org
Arun Samuga Member arun.samuga@elemica.com

• Summary Discussion
– An initial pilot project was proposed at the April 13 2017 Network of Networks
meeting in Orlando, FL
– A group was formed at the December 2017 Network of Networks meeting in
Indianapolis, IN to continue the development of the pilot
• It was agreed that shared common core trading partner data would be useful to the
vendor onboarding process.
• Analysis of vendor masters will be performed to identify common core trading partner data
• A hosted registry will be created to allow common core trading partner data to be
uploaded
• The hosted registry will be compliant with ISO 8000-120 (quality master data with
provenance)
• A validation process will be agreed
• An ISO 22745 compliant API will be developed to allow synchronization of shared
• Consideration will be given to the use of blockchain for the decentralization of the registry
of common core trading partner data
December 2017 Wrap-up

Trading Partner Data model
Formation record
*Date (of formation)
*ALEI
*Legal Name
Entity kind
Address for services
Physical Locations
eNLI (GPS)
Functions
Digital locations
Telephone
eMail
Web
ftp
Proxy legal entity identifiers
Taxpayer number (EIN, TIN, VAT)
D-U-N-S® number
AVID number
GS1 Company prefix
CAGE
ASN number
* suitable for blockchain
Relationship
Type
Qualifier Relationship Transaction*
*Date
*ALEI
*ALEI
*Relationship type
*Qualifier
Function Transaction
Date
ALEI
Function
Location
Proxy location identifiers
Address
GLN
what3words

ISO 8000 definitions
authoritative identifier
identifier issued by an organization that is the originator of the object identified
proxy identifier
identifier issued by an organization that is not the originator of the object identified
legal entity
physical or juridical person granted legal status by a government
authoritative legal entity identifier
identifier for a legal entity issued by the administrative agency for a government with the
authority to grant legal status
proxy legal entity identifier
identifier for a legal entity issued by an organization that is not the administrative agency
for a government with the authority to grant legal status
vital record
record of life events kept under governmental authority
Example: birth certificates, marriage licenses, and death certificates.

Example of ALEI and Formation Record
eALEI.org

ISO 8000-116
Requirements for authoritative legal entity identifiers
a) an authoritative legal entity identifier shall conform to ISO 8000-115
b) the prefix element shall be the ISO 3166-1 country code and ISO 3166-2 subdivision
if applicable followed by the full stop character ‘.’ (UTF-8 character 2E as specified by ISO/IEC
10646) followed by any character combination capable of being represented in UFT-8 encoding
(as specified by ISO/IEC 10646) representing the register maintained by the administrative
agency for a government that assigned the identifier element.
Examples:
1. ECCMA is a registered corporation in the State of Delaware for which the ISO 3166-2
code for country and subdivision is US-DE. Within the State of Delaware, the Division of
Corporations is the administrative agency that assigns identifiers for juridical persons
represented on documents of formation. In the US the common name for the register is the
“Business Entity Register”. The prefix element would therefore be “US-DE.BER”. ECCMA’s
registration number is 3031657. The ALEI for ECCMA is [US-DE.BER:3031657].
2. XYZ is a physical person born in the State of California for which the ISO 3166-2
code is US-CA. In the State of California, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is
the administrative agency for vital records (VR) it assigns identifiers for physical persons
represented on birth certificates. The prefix element would therefore be “US-CA.VR”.

ALEI Prefixes
The list of recommended ISO/CD 8000-116 ALEI
Prefixes can be found at
https://eccma.org/white-paper-downloads/eotd-downloads/?category=Whitepaper

Using ALEI to improve Vendor Master
Case study
Task:
• Research ALEIs for suppliers that represented 95% of spend
• This represented 24,245 suppliers in 81 countries
Results:
• ALEIs could be verified for 17,111 suppliers (71%) in 33 countries
• 7,134 (29%) of the suppliers will need to be asked for more information to verify
their legal status
• Of the 17,111 verified suppliers 7,060 (41%) had duplicate records
Total number of suppliers 67,483 100%
95% of spend 24,245 36%
Remaining 5% 43,238 64%
ALEIs researched 24,245 100%
ALEIs verified 17,111 71%
Further information required from vendor to validate legal entity 7,134 29%
Verified ALEIs 17,111 100%
Verified Legal Entities 10,051 59%
Duplicate records linked to master Legal Entity records 7,060 41%

Summary Discussion
At the April 2018 Network of Networks meeting in Chicago, IL it was agreed to continue the onboarding
pilot:
• The eALEI.org (ISO 8000-116) as a common core trading partner register was successfully
demonstrated
– Further updates are needed to include improved request for the addition of trading partners.
– The data contained in the eALEI is sourced from authoritative government sites or documents, there is a need
to display the date when the data was sourced and to develop a plan for updates (update once, all parties
updated)
• It was agreed that it is the responsibility of the initiating trading partner to ensure that both trading
parties have a record in the eALEI.org before notifying the networks
• ISO/CD 8000-116 (ALEI) is useful in identifying duplicate trading partner records within a company
and useful in communicating correct trading partner name to networks
• Onboarding for a network to network (digital) connection is a second step that supplements an
existing trading relationship
• Initial onboarding requires setup of (1) legal entity data, (2) functional location data, (3) product data
and (4) contract data
• ISO 22745 (SDFx or SDFj) is the international standard for the exchange of master data
• ISO 8000-115 is the international standard for formatting reference data (registered prefix:part
number)
April 2018 Wrap-up

Primary goal of the pilot
• To test the benefit of a registry of common core trading partner data in facilitating the frictionless
automated onboarding between two trading parties and between their networks
Success Metrics
• Existence of a pilot registry of up to date authoritative common core legal entity trading partner data
accessible to trading partners and their networks
• Trading partners and their networks have improved, trusted common master data
• Manual processing and after the fact investigative energy reduced
• Time to first PO reduced
• Time to first PO transmitted through a network of networks reduced
Expected value
• Administrative cost reduction
– Better (resolvable) legal entity, location and product references
– Improved internal controls and spend analytics (increased accuracy and timeliness)
– Compliance enabler (ITAR)
• Input cost reduction
– Opportunity for item aggregation and supplier optimization
• Cash enabler
– shorter cycle time of transactions, less invoice resolution,
– inventory optimization
Updated (April 2018) Goals and Measure of Success

• Next Steps
• Develop and test Network API to the eALEI.org (ECCMA, Elemica,
GTNEXUS)
• Link ALEI to GLN to test the ability to obtain functional addresses
(ECCMA, GS1)
• Link GLN to eNLI to test ability to obtain location GPS coordinates for
functional addresses (ECCMA, GS1)
• Develop supply chain dictionary (Lora, N2Nwow, ECCMA)
• Continue to review the use of blockchain for the decentralization of the
registry of common core trading partner data (ECCMA)
April 2018 Wrap-up

• What will be tested?
– Availability, and accuracy of shared common core trading partner data
• How will it be tested?
– Loading and validating common core trading partner data provided by
pilot participants into a central registry
– Testing of manual name search and retrieval of shared common core
trading partner data
– Testing of Application Programmer Interface (API) for retrieving shared
Pilot Test Plan

Timetable
Date Description
End Jan First telephone meeting of project participants
(Biweekly telephone progress meetings thereafter)
End Feb Sample vendor master data provided by pilot participants
• Agreement on common core data and definitions
End Mar
Hosted central register of common core trading partner data
available for testing
April 24-
26
Demonstration of central register of common core trading partner
data at Network of Networks Spring 2018 meeting
June
Demonstration of updated register of common core trading partner
data and network provider API at Network of Networks Summer
2018 meeting
Sept 4-7 Presentation of results at Supply Chain Insights Global Summit

• Who are the members of the group? What are the roles?
Members
Lora Cecere Observer lora.cecere@supplychaininsights.com
Regina Denman Observer regina.denman@supplychaininsights.com
Peter Benson Member Peter.Benson@eccma.org
Navala, Marko Member marko.navala@sap.com
Kumar, Anand K Member anand.k.kumar@intel.com
David Hume Member david.t.hume@intel.com
Joshua Perkins Member joshua.perkins@intel.com
Stacie Hall Member stacie.hall@intel.com
Jay Russell Member jay.j.russell@intel.com
Van L Bicknell Member BicknellVL@Corning.com
Ralf Kahre Member ralf.kahre@basf.com>
Betty Parston Member Betty.Parston@schneider-electric.com
Brian Tessier Member brian.tessier@schneider-electric.com
Tom Sorgie Member tom.sorgie@infor.com
Hiedi Benko Member heidi.benko@infor.com
Chandrashekhar Khambete Member chandrashekhar.khambete@e2open.com
Wilkie, Carrie Member CWilkie@gs1us.org
Cindi Hane Member cindi.hane@elemica.com
Rich Katz Member rich.katz@elemica.com
Trevor Miles Member tmiles@kinaxis.com
Scott Rockafellow Member scott.rockafellow@monsanto.com
Sheron Koshy Tech support sheron.koshy@eccma.org
Jonathan Roelofsz Content support jonathan.roelofsz@eccma.org
Arun Samuga Member arun.samuga@elemica.com

– An initial pilot project was proposed at the April 13 2017 Network of Networks
meeting in Orlando, FL
– A group was formed at the December 2017 Network of Networks meeting in
Indianapolis, IN to continue the development of the pilot
• It was agreed that shared common core trading partner data would be useful to the
vendor onboarding process.
• Analysis of vendor masters will be performed to identify common core trading partner data
• A hosted registry will be created to allow common core trading partner data to be
uploaded
• The hosted registry will be compliant with ISO 8000-120 (quality master data with
provenance)
• A validation process will be agreed
• An ISO 22745 compliant API will be developed to allow synchronization of shared
• Consideration will be given to the use of blockchain for the decentralization of the registry
of common core trading partner data
December 2017 Wrap-up

Trading Partner Data model
Formation record
*Date (of formation)
*ALEI
*Legal Name
Entity kind
Address for services
Physical Locations
eNLI (GPS)
Functions
Digital locations
Telephone
eMail
Web
ftp
Proxy legal entity identifiers
Taxpayer number (EIN, TIN, VAT)
D-U-N-S® number
AVID number
GS1 Company prefix
CAGE
ASN number
* suitable for blockchain
Relationship
Type
Qualifier Relationship Transaction*
*Date
*ALEI
*ALEI
*Relationship type
*Qualifier
Function Transaction
Date
ALEI
Function
Location
Proxy location identifiers
Address
GLN
what3words

ISO 8000 definitions
authoritative identifier
identifier issued by an organization that is the originator of the object identified
proxy identifier
identifier issued by an organization that is not the originator of the object identified
legal entity
physical or juridical person granted legal status by a government
authoritative legal entity identifier
identifier for a legal entity issued by the administrative agency for a government with the
authority to grant legal status
proxy legal entity identifier
identifier for a legal entity issued by an organization that is not the administrative agency
for a government with the authority to grant legal status
vital record
record of life events kept under governmental authority
Example: birth certificates, marriage licenses, and death certificates.

Example of ALEI and Formation Record
eALEI.org

ISO 8000-116
Requirements for authoritative legal entity identifiers
a) an authoritative legal entity identifier shall conform to ISO 8000-115
b) the prefix element shall be the ISO 3166-1 country code and ISO 3166-2 subdivision
if applicable followed by the full stop character ‘.’ (UTF-8 character 2E as specified by ISO/IEC
10646) followed by any character combination capable of being represented in UFT-8 encoding
(as specified by ISO/IEC 10646) representing the register maintained by the administrative
agency for a government that assigned the identifier element.
Examples:
1. ECCMA is a registered corporation in the State of Delaware for which the ISO 3166-2
code for country and subdivision is US-DE. Within the State of Delaware, the Division of
Corporations is the administrative agency that assigns identifiers for juridical persons
represented on documents of formation. In the US the common name for the register is the
“Business Entity Register”. The prefix element would therefore be “US-DE.BER”. ECCMA’s
registration number is 3031657. The ALEI for ECCMA is [US-DE.BER:3031657].
2. XYZ is a physical person born in the State of California for which the ISO 3166-2
code is US-CA. In the State of California, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is
the administrative agency for vital records (VR) it assigns identifiers for physical persons
represented on birth certificates. The prefix element would therefore be “US-CA.VR”.

ALEI Prefixes
The list of recommended ISO/CD 8000-116 ALEI
Prefixes can be found at
https://eccma.org/white-paper-downloads/eotd-downloads/?category=Whitepaper

Using ALEI to improve Vendor Master
Case study
Task:
• Research ALEIs for suppliers that represented 95% of spend
• This represented 24,245 suppliers in 81 countries
Results:
• ALEIs could be verified for 17,111 suppliers (71%) in 33 countries
• 7,134 (29%) of the suppliers will need to be asked for more information to verify
their legal status
• Of the 17,111 verified suppliers 7,060 (41%) had duplicate records
Total number of suppliers 67,483 100%
95% of spend 24,245 36%
Remaining 5% 43,238 64%
ALEIs researched 24,245 100%
ALEIs verified 17,111 71%
Further information required from vendor to validate legal entity 7,134 29%
Verified ALEIs 17,111 100%
Verified Legal Entities 10,051 59%
Duplicate records linked to master Legal Entity records 7,060 41%

Summary Discussion
At the April 2018 Network of Networks meeting in Chicago, IL it was agreed to continue the onboarding
pilot:
• The eALEI.org (ISO 8000-116) as a common core trading partner register was successfully
demonstrated
– Further updates are needed to include improved request for the addition of trading partners.
– The data contained in the eALEI is sourced from authoritative government sites or documents, there is a need
to display the date when the data was sourced and to develop a plan for updates (update once, all parties
updated)
• It was agreed that it is the responsibility of the initiating trading partner to ensure that both trading
parties have a record in the eALEI.org before notifying the networks
• ISO/CD 8000-116 (ALEI) is useful in identifying duplicate trading partner records within a company
and useful in communicating correct trading partner name to networks
• Onboarding for a network to network (digital) connection is a second step that supplements an
existing trading relationship
• Initial onboarding requires setup of (1) legal entity data, (2) functional location data, (3) product data
and (4) contract data
• ISO 22745 (SDFx or SDFj) is the international standard for the exchange of master data
• ISO 8000-115 is the international standard for formatting reference data (registered prefix:part
number)
April 2018 Wrap-up

Primary goal of the pilot
• To test the benefit of a registry of common core trading partner data in facilitating the frictionless
automated onboarding between two trading parties and between their networks
Success Metrics
• Existence of a pilot registry of up to date authoritative common core legal entity trading partner data
accessible to trading partners and their networks
• Trading partners and their networks have improved, trusted common master data
• Manual processing and after the fact investigative energy reduced
• Time to first PO reduced
• Time to first PO transmitted through a network of networks reduced
Expected value
• Administrative cost reduction
– Better (resolvable) legal entity, location and product references
– Improved internal controls and spend analytics (increased accuracy and timeliness)
– Compliance enabler (ITAR)
• Input cost reduction
– Opportunity for item aggregation and supplier optimization
• Cash enabler
– shorter cycle time of transactions, less invoice resolution,
– inventory optimization
Updated (April 2018) Goals and Measure of Success

• Next Steps
• Develop and test Network API to the eALEI.org (ECCMA, Elemica,
GTNEXUS)
• Link ALEI to GLN to test the ability to obtain functional addresses
(ECCMA, GS1)
• Link GLN to eNLI to test ability to obtain location GPS coordinates for
functional addresses (ECCMA, GS1)
• Develop supply chain dictionary (Lora, N2Nwow, ECCMA)
• Continue to review the use of blockchain for the decentralization of the
registry of common core trading partner data (ECCMA)
April 2018 Wrap-up

Improve Multi-tier response time for
Product Provenance
Update 24-April-2018

Core Project team
First NameLast Name Company Position Title Project Role
Project
RACI
Lora Cecere Supply Chain Insights Founder / CEO POC Champion C
Pramaod Achanta IBM Watson Supply Chain POC Team R
Christine Barnhart Berry Global Global Process Owner - Supply Chain POC Team A / R
Bill Benda GSQA POC Team R
Van Bicknell Corning Global Supply Management Data Manager POC Team C
Dan Crenien GSQA POC Team R
Shari Diaz IBM Watson Supply Chain Program Director for Innovation, Strategy & Operations POC Team A / R
Sheri Hanish W.R. Grace & Co Supply Chain Excellence Leader POC Team C
John Wisniewski Mars International SFC Program Senior Manager POC Team R

Project Support Team(s)
First Name Last Name Company Position Title Project Role Project RACI
Blaine Barclay Berry Global Qualilty Assurance Engineering Berry Support C
Dawn Crowley Berry Global Quality Document / System Administrator Berry Support C
Joseph Jenson Berry Global Quality Assurance Manager Berry Support C
Martha Johnson Berry Global Customer Service Training Manager Berry Support C
Beatrice Johnson Berry Global Materials / Inventory Control Coordinator Berry Support C
Timothy Martin Berry Global Material Control Manager Berry Support C
David Meguiar Berry Global Integrated Supply Chain Manager Berry Support C
Jacob Tindle Berry Global Director Supply Chain Systesm Berry Support C
Kristen Toone Berry Global Quality Assurance Manager Berry Support C
Hemendra Acharya Berry Global Senior Oracle Technical Lead Berry Team R
Jennifer McClellan Berry Global Customer Service Representative Berry Team C
Lee Mosebey Berry Global Continuous Improvement Manager Berry Team R
Steven Ownbey Berry Global ERP / Financial Systems Director Berry Team R
Michelle Phillips Berry Global Purchasing Manager Berry Team R
Matthew Snodgrass Berry Global IMS Ship/Logistics Systems Manager Berry Team R
James Spurrier Berry Global Vice President Technical Services Berry Team R
Leo Janus IBM Watson Supply Chain IBM Team ?
Kaushik Malladi IBM Watson Supply Chain IBM Team ?
Todd Margo IBM Watson Supply Chain IBM Team ?

Provenance Proof of Concept (PoC)
What
• Improve multi-tier response time for
product provenance
– Focus: Improve chain of custody
where DATA needs to be moved
between parties / systems
What’s out of scope:
• How to determine that a product
needs to be recalled
• Distributors
• Logistics providers
• Overall business / manufacturing
processes for pilot participants, ie cap
batch traceability with Wrigley
How
1. Select a single SKU that Berry supplies
to Mars International (WM Wrigley Jr) to
work with
– Candidate: Item Number – Berry:
J1027224 – In-car gum cup holder CAP
2. Document the current process and
baseline the time required to identify the
provenance of the material in question
3. Define solution value prop for all parties
involved, leveraging Design Thinking
4. Design the PoC… likely leveraging the
IBM Blockchain Platform / Provenance
engine
5. Develop and deploy the PoC solution
6. Simulate a recall / document the time
required to identify the provenance of
the material in question and quantify
improvement



Definition of POC Success
Business criteria
• Shorten the time / reduce the cost
to determine product provenance
and total product set required to
be recalled
• Simplify the process
• Increase quality of the data
• Open additional collaboration
opportunities
• Quick / Easy / Not Resource
Intensive
Technical criteria
• Easy to use solution
– Easy to sign on, to post and
retrieve information
• System performance
• Usage of standards in the
solution?
• Headless Solution / Portal

62
A Potential Network
Audit
Warehouse / Supplier
Certifications, authenticity, Inspect, Monitor
Supply Chain
Tracking
Track SKU
Berry:J1027224 FG
Cap & J981796 ColorBerry PO acceptance
Production Updates
Issue ASN from Berry
Update COA
Issue PO to Supplier
Receive product from Supplier
Quality Check
Production Updates
Update CoC
Issue PO to Berry Global
Receive ASN from Berry
Receive material at Wrigley warehouse
Discussion points:
1. Is there a carrier involved?
2. Are there multiple systems
at each company?
3. Do we need to split
between Mfg. & Distribution
@ Berry / Wrigley
Color, J981796, is Lot Controlled
Resin is NOT Lot Controlled

• PO from Wrigley to Berry
• PO from Berry to 2nd Tier color supplier, Polyone
• ASN (complete lot detail) from 2nd Tier supplier to Berry
• Mfg details from Berry including BOM for part, prod schedules, etc
• ASN (complete detail) from Berry to Wrigley
• Compliance documents, quality documents from any/all
Note: May want to consider mfg/machinery/line issues, mold set issue,
temp excursions, dye issues, age and storage
Draft: Fields to put on the blockchain

Document Source
System
Travels
today?
(Y/N)
If Y, Format,
Protocol
Sample available?
(both electronic and
human readable)
PO from Wrigley to Berry
PO from Berry to 2nd Tier Supplier,
Polyone
JDE
ASN (complete lot detail) from 2nd Tier
Supplier to Berry
Mfg details from Berry including BOM
for part, prod schedules, etc
JDE
ASN (complete detail) from Berry to
Wrigley
JDE
N -
Consignment
Certificate of Conformity (COC) JDE Y PDF / hard copy
Recall Report / BOL Report, Bill of
Lading, Packing Slip
JDE Y PDF / hard copy
Compliance documents, quality
documents from any/all
Fields to put on the blockchain

Process
Formulatio
n
Whse
Ship to
Distributio
n
Resin
J1019601
Color
J981796
Mold
J1417193
Whse
Ship to
Wrigley
Package
Active
Ingredient
Raw Materials
(Co-formulants,
solvents)
Package
Berry Global
Mars International (WM Wrigley Jr)
Need to update
Mold
J1027244
Resin
J691832

• Incorrect packaging materials
• Damage to packaging
• Caps not in box correctly
• Dirt / contamination
• Flash present
• Cracked / cracking / damaged caps
• Caps wrong color or “tint” to color
• Tolerance issues: don’t fit base, don’t snap/stay closed
• Short order, ie physical count does not match BOL, invoice
Example Issues that can launch quality / recall investigation
Need to update

Complaint Identification process flow
Distributor
identifies issue
with Pkg –
Contacts DAS CSR
DAS CSR enters
complaint,
contacts Quality
for investigation
Investigation takes place
Supplier contacted
Contain issue
(return/dispose)
1 day
Meeting to
evaluate
Recall
Status;
days to weeks
Bottles identified with a “born date”
Caps – no way to identify batch
Would bracket timeframe with receipt to identify
Wrigley Identifies
issue with Cap–
Contacts Berry
CSR
Berry CSR enters
complaint,
contacts Quality
for investigation
Investigation takes place
Supplier contacted
Contain issue
(return/dispose)
1 day
Meeting to
evaluate
Recall
Status;
days to weeks
5 days to several weeks
Caps – can Wrigley identify batch or is it time
frame, ie batches
Might need to investigate / pull data from
multiple Berry batches and multiple supplier lots
Need to update

1st and 2nd Tier Supplier Data Flow
Berry Issues
PO to
Supplier,
Polyone
(J981796)
74% PDF / 25% EDI /
1 % Portal
Supplier
Receives PO &
Acknowledges
74% PDF / 25% EDI /
1 % Portal
Material
Received at
Berry BP
Supplier
Produces
Issues ASN to
Berry
COA Received
90% w
material, 10%
via email
Material is
released by
quality &
issued Berry
Lot #
Pull material
for production
Item is designated as “Vendor
Lot Controlled
Material is assigned a lot # in
JDE – See screen shot
Berry Receives
PO from
Wrigley
(J1027224)
Records JDE Lot # for color
when pulled for production
- See Material Issue screen
shot
Produce Cap
Issue ASN to
Wrigley
Material
Received at
Wrigley
COC Issued /
Received
Material
Stored until
production
Write to BlockChain / Smart
Contract for Approval prior to
shipment
Retain BlockChain
reference from supplier Write to BlockChain /
Smart Contract for
Approval prior to shipment

Finished Good (FG) BOM - CAP
WIP
Resin

Work in Process (WIP) BOM
Color
Resin

Example Sales Order

FG Item Branch Record – LOT Controlled

Color Item Branch Record – LOT Controlled

Example PO for Color

Color Lot # - NEED TO UPDATE

Material Issue to WO

Resin Item Branch Record – NOT LOT CONTROLLED

Example Resign PO

• Recall Report
• Bill of Lading
• Pack Slip
• Certificate of Conformity
Berry Readily Available Documentation

Next Steps
• Milestone 1: Assess participant technical capability and existing use
cases (5/1)
– Determine Wrigley usage of GSQA (assistance with message set)
– Determine Polyone color supplier use of GSQA and/or ability to generate /
consume JSON messages
– Determine Berry ability to generate / consume JSON message and to create
APIs
– Review value proposition and existing use cases
• Milestone 2: Data and Design (6/1)
– Finalize data to be exchanged (5/15)
– Design the PoC (6/1)
• Milestone3: Develop and deploy the PoC (6/15)
• Milestone 4: Simulate Recall (9/15)
– Document the time & effort required to identify the provenance of the material
in question and measure improvement
• Present at November Network of Networks Session (11/1)




• Reduce recalled items that are not defective
• Notifying additional enterprises impacted
• Inventory optimization
• Quality management
• Logistics efficiency
• Add Berry Woodstock location, J1433510, to POC?
Potential follow on projects

• Lack of participation / no participation
• Cost prohibitive – business case may not be the “juiciest”
• Lack of variation – too limited in participants, scope, items, etc….
Key Risks

Network of Networks Pilots

The What/Problem statement: Price verification within multi-party
customer, supplier and CMs
• Problem definition: Brands negotiate bulk pricing & volume with
material suppliers. Contract manufacturers then procure against bulk
contract.. But the actual price & volume could be different and all the
parties don’t have trusted transparency
• The biggest challenge is when material cost depends on commodity
index with price volatility.
Pilot Definition

So What?
1. Brand may be paying more to CM than they should
2. Slow and costly reconciliation between customer, supplier, and CM
3. Slower cash cycle for everyone
Pilot Definition

POC model
POC Model
Customer
CM Supplier
1 Negotiated $1 for 100K units
2
Acquisition mgmt fee of $.05 assuming
Material A= $1 for 100K units
Focus areas:
 Visibility
 Latency
 Trust
3 50K @$1.1
25K @$1.2
25K @$1.125
Commodity
Index

Test Plan
• Kevin, Lora, Christine try to find “2-3 dance partners” & product with
commodity price variability
• Nulogy and Boardwalktech investigate system interoperability
• Validate problem & value with partners to set pilot scope
Test Plan

What Defines Success?
• Document before and how much it is now
– Is the $value reduced
– How many times does it happen
• Reduction in reconciliation time
• CM gets paid faster, brand has stronger profit control
• Overall efficiency will lead to better price/volume/margin for all
participants
What Defines Success?

Timetable

• JB Kuppe (Boardwalktech) – system/technology
• Glenn Cordingley (Boardwalktech) – Collaborator
• Kevin Wong (Nulogy)
• Lora – fearless leader
• Christine Barnhart (Berry Global) – supplier role
• 2-3 CPG/CM/Supplier dance partners
Members

Wrap-up

Network of Networks Share Group Spring Update

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Network of Networks Share Group Spring Update

Semelhante a Network of Networks Share Group Spring Update (20)

Mais de Lora Cecere

Mais de Lora Cecere (20)

Último

Último (20)

Network of Networks Share Group Spring Update