Som reflection on industrial B2B connectivity inspired by reading the article “The Age of continuous Connection” written by Nicolaj Siggelow and Christian Terwiesch published in the may June 2019 issue of Harvard Business review.

1. Continuous industrial
connectivity
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

2. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
I got inspired reading the article “The Age of continuous Connection” written by Nicolaj Siggelow and Christian
Terwiesch published in the may June 2019 issue of Harvard Business review. In that article they describe four
connected strategies to go beyond the “not so” connected “Buy what we have” model. The article is written from the
perspective of connected consumer sales/consumer interaction rather than connected industrial interaction which got
me thinking; “-Can those strategies be applied/ will those strategies be the same for value chains in a B2B industrial
context?” I knew the answer was “yes” the same moment I asked myself the question but I figured I could still gain
something from playing around with the authors models and giving those some thoughts, taking a B2B industry
perspective doing so. There ought to be something useful coming out of reflecting a few minutes on the authors
scenario of a selling organization connected to an individual with a single connected device relative the enterprise
perspective of a selling organization connected to a buying organization with many connected machines, possibly even
a global network of connected machines.

3. Connected
Business to
Consumer
Connected
Business to
Business
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

4. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
Connected sensing and execution in Business To Consumer is done using the same building blocks as in Business To
Business. In both cases, achieving value chain excellence is a matter of dealing with connected data flows, turning those
into information flows and use those to win business followed by execution of physical supply chains. It´s a matter of
allocating available capabilities to create the right value chain for the customer. The difference between B2C and B2B
resides in things like the power balance between the parties, the scale, the level of detail, the perspective, the legal
framework and the time horizon of the relationship.

5. Goods
Services
Goods
Services
Information Information
Data Data
Connected Business to Business Connected Business to Consumer
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

6. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
The authors provide a three + one stage model to describe the customer journey. Looking at those steps from an
Enterprise architecture perspective, I see something similar to value chain models used in traditional “B2B industry
value network excellence” efforts. The model starts left to right from customer need to satisfying that need & learning
from it whereas industry value chain models tend to be mapped out starting from ability to develop products and then
produce/deliver them, placing customer demand to the far right.

7. Recognize Request Respond Repeat
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

8. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
The authors describe “Recognize” as where the customer becomes aware of a need. “Request” is where the customer
identifies some product or service or product to meet the need. “Respond” covers the customer experience when the
request is met. Similar stages are present as value chain building blocks when describing industrial B2B too, although
the depth and complexity in each stage is likely to be greater for industrial B2B, simply because there is more of
everything as scale increases. The authors describe the last, “+ one” stage: “Repeat” as where analysis of data is
transformed to learning used to tailor the product/service offer for the next interaction.
I like the clarity and simplicity of those four (“three + 1”) steps. Intuitively, with years of industrial value chain design in
the back of my head, I feel an urge to bring in the richer APICS / Supply chain council reference model and look at the
connected customer journey using the more detailed models for CCOR and SCOR. The “Repeat” step would be the
feedback loop to PLCOR and DCOR to tune the offer (and then used in future CCOR, SCOR steps).

9. Plan
Relate Sell Contract
Assist
Plan
Source Make Deliver
Return
SCORCCOR
Recognize Request Respond Repeat
PLCOR DCOR
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

10. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
The five models the authors describe are: “Buy what we have”, “Respond to desire”, “Curated Offering”, “Coach
behavior” and “Automatic Execution”.
In consumer sales “Buy what we have” is described as a disconnected, “zero connectivity” model. The only time an
information channel is open between the two parties is when the buyer buys and the seller consequently sells. Then
the channel closes again, No communication, no follow up (unless there is a claim)

11. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

12. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
The selling party goes on doing whatever they do on their side of the value chain without any relation to the specific
customer. The buying party goes on doing their thing on their side of the value chain with an equally disconnected
relation to the seller. The two meet and momentarily connect their value chains in an ad hoc, drop by manner when the
buyer has a need. If goods are on the shelf or at least available to order with an acceptable lead time the consumer
buys it, leaves and the parties have no contact until the next time there is a need. There is no interaction to explore
how the customers need can be met better, no interaction to predict or prescribe. The ”Buy what we have” model in
B2B industry is sometimes a bit more relational. It´s not connected, it doesn´t utilize the power of connectivity as it is
available with modern technology but it might have at least some element of communication although not digital. The
door isn´t locked all the time… There is a dialog in between parties. They do try to exchange information as it benefits
them both and, contrary to consumer sales they are both of a scale that makes it worth the effort.
The authors describe “Respond to desire” as a model that offers the customer services and products with “fast
delivery, minimal friction, flexibility and fast execution”. That is similar to what industrial “Just in time” manufacturing
model shave been aiming for and succeeding with since way back into the 1960-ties. Focus is on making buying
extremely easy (sometimes retroactive, a call off) and making delivery immediate and fast either through inventory or
through optimized/reactive/rapid MAKE and DELIVER.

13. Plan
Relate Sell Contract
Assist
Plan
Source Make Deliver
Return
SCORCCOR
Easy Fast
Recognize Request Respond
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

14. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
In industry, “Fast” is where the S&OP planning processes and logistics (at their best) converge with document level
collaboration, especially on SMI inventory levels. “Respond to desire” is also described with the words “Listen carefully
to what customers want and make the buying process easy”. In industry B2B this means gearing up abilities in the
CCOR “Relate” area and using the knowledge acquire there to format the Sell and Contract experience (Quote to
order).

15. Relate Sell Contract
Recognize Request
EasyListen Fast
Deliver
Respond
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

16. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
Industry practices in the “Respond to desire” area have focused on document level collaboration like exchange of
inventory levels, forecast, orders and actual consumption, not so much on machine/material mgmt. system connectivity
on the level what we today see/envision using IoT and big data technologies.

17. Inventpry
Forecast
Capacity
Order
Shipment
Invoice
Document oriented message
dialogues
Events messages and event
streams
Document level
collaboration
Sharing of and action on
business events compiled
into “documents”
Event level collaboration
Sharing and action on
event streams from
machine/device generated
events
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

18. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
By now, when IoT sensing and event (data) stream processing has become technically mature and cost efficient. The
opportunities in combining (extending?) document-based collaboration with event level collaboration using
connectivity are obvious (and happening hands on since several years). The whole value chain of business processes
from creating a product to operating it in the aftermarket can be enhanced by linking sensed event information into
traditional document level collaboration. Then, the next step on the maturity ladder is to bypass traditional document
level collaboration and establish fully connected and automated business processes to define and run the value chain in
new, better ways.

19. MakeDesign Contract Monitor Service Tune Operate
Sell
Events messages and event
streams
Deliver
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

20. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
In the “Curated Offering” model the seller intercepts. The seller does listen to be easy and fast. The seller also listens
to data to intercept to actively support the buyer in making choices. In consumer sales this involves using personalized
recommendations to steer the consumer towards the choice that is most beneficial for the seller at the time while still
fitting the consumers need. The mechanism In industry B2B is the same but based on understanding the state and
direction of the buyer as an organization which requires dressing up sensed data with another context before making
decisions from it. “Personalized” means having a 360 view of the buying organizations situation and intent. “Most
beneficial for the seller” means having a 360 view of the own internal situation and intent. Sensed data needs to be
analyzed and translate to action in the context of those two.

21. Relate Sell Contract
Recognize Request
EasyListen Fast
Deliver
Respond
Intercept
Understand
person
Understand
organisationECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

22. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
In the “Coach Behavior model”, the seller actively reminds customers of their needs and engage to make them act.
The authors describe the customers as “Customers who know they need nudging”. In B2B industry these customers are
comparable to customers who openly invite suppliers to contribute proactively improve product development, supply
planning, supply chain execution and in some case go as far as inviting to participate in improving their customer
interaction in their quote and order process.

23. Relate Sell Contract
Recognize Request
EasyListen Fast
Deliver
Respond
Intercept
Understand
person
Understand
organisation
Nudge
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

24. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
In the “Automatic execution” model, the authors highlight meeting customer need before the customer is aware of
that need. Being able to operate that proactively requires trust.

25. Relate Sell Contract
Recognize Request
EasyListen Fast
Deliver
Respond
Intercept
Understand
person
Understand
organisation
Nudge
Before
Trust
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

26. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
Looking at “Automatic execution” from a B2B industry perspective, it has some similarities with traditional VMI/SMI
collaboration scenarios that kick in already in “Respond to desire” but takes it further as it allows the seller to act
directly to the connected signals. Doing so in a B2B business setting requires contracts that regulate what the actors
accept and can do within their shared value chain without reverting to energy consuming and delaying discussion to
confirm before acting.

27. sense
Act Analyze
Contracted arena
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture

28. ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture
So to wrap it up, I guess one answer to the question: “-What might be worth reflecting over in scenarios ranging from a
selling organization connected to an individual with a single device to a selling organization connected organization with
many machines, possibly even a global network of moving machines?” is “Contracts to let the parties act on connected
data”. The game between buyer and seller needs to be played under contracted rules that allows for (autonomous)
automation.
Contracts….But as I said up there in the beginning; I´m just curios if there is something to learn from playing around
with the models …

29. (Old but )Related PPTs
• Models for stimulating discussion on where to position IoT and data efforts
• https://www.slideshare.net/StefanHarrstedt/models-for-stimulating-discussion-on-where-to-
position-iot-and-data-efforts-81838038
• Digital transformatin, IOT in retail, driving an enterprise architecture for
listening differently
• https://www.slideshare.net/StefanHarrstedt/digital-transformatin-iot-in-retail-driving-an-
enterprise-architecture-for-listening-differently
• Some conceptual views on iot in the supply chain
• https://www.slideshare.net/StefanHarrstedt/some-conceptual-views-on-iot-in-the-supply-
chain
• Digital transformation and online sales in mobile
• https://www.slideshare.net/StefanHarrstedt/digital-transformation-and-online-sales-in-
mobile
ECSCIA, European Centre of Supply Chain Information
Architecture