Q: What's the No. 1 technology setback you encounter in the aftermarket?
A: Most of the companies I've talked with are very pragmatic and customer-driven. There's not a lot of room for projects that can't show some immediate return on their investment. If it doesn't cut costs or if it isn't something their customers are demanding, it generally takes a back seat. So, I would say tight budgets and the perceived lack of [a return on investment (ROI)] are the biggest deterrents to implementing new technologies. If something is working, even in a non-optimal way, it can take a lot of effort to change direction and reassign limited resources to something new.
Q: What do you think is the biggest obstacle to wider adoption of the current data standards?
A: I think you need to separate the two data standards (ACES and PIES). On the catalog side, ACES has made steady progress over the past six-years, but the ramp-up has taken much too long. Even though it meant more work initially, early adopters saw the value in moving to a more robust standard (with all of the validation and consistency it enforced). But if you had limited resources and believed your data was just fine, there was little incentive to take on that project. I can tell you that in most cases, though, the data was not nearly as good as they thought.
Generally speaking, catalog departments are understaffed and work as hard as they can just to keep up with internal demands and customer requests. As software solutions were introduced, and the education process took hold, and many data receivers began to "prefer" ACES files, implementations increased. But even today, a recent survey showed only 57% of the suppliers deliver ACES files. Looking back, I would say the biggest obstacle to wider adoption has been the lack of a reasonable date when the legacy format would be retired. It was only last year that a date was set, and that date is still four years away. In many ways, I think it's similar to the conversion the country is making from analog to digital TV. Even though digital offers better quality and opens up other opportunities, many people will wait until the last possible moment to make the investment necessary to make the switch.
Product data, however, is a completely different story. The ROI for PIES was established early on in its development. Data synchronization is not an issue specific to this industry and there's a lot of information available on the subject showing its benefits. And unlike ACES, there really wasn't an established product exchange standard that PIES was trying to replace. Given all that, everyone expected PIES to catch on very quickly, and most were surprised when it didn't.
Having now worked with companies starting to implement PIES, it's clear to me why adoption has been slow. Unlike catalog application data, product data touches many systems and departments throughout an organization. Pricing, packaging, shipping information, interchanges, images, HAZMAT—all of these are part of PIES. Very few companies have all of this data readily available in a single system. It can be a big project just to locate this information. But as difficult as all that is to collect, the biggest obstacle, I believe, was that no data partners were demanding it... until now.
Q: Do you think companies in the aftermarket understand the distinct difference between the PIES and ACES standards? Has there been too much emphasis on the ACES side of things?
A: I think AAIA staff, solution providers, conference speakers and the media have done a good job evangelizing and educating those willing to listen. The group responsible for defining and authoring these standards is made up of people from all areas of the industry including manufacturers, distributors, retailers, e-cat companies and solution providers. Their mission is to develop standards and best practices that lower the cost of doing business and increase efficiencies in the sales channel. We have been fortunate, I think, to have some very talented people working on these foundational initiatives. And maybe even more important has been the strategic planning work going on as well. I really don't see a lack of emphasis. What I see is a realization from all involved just how vital these standards have become to the industry. What began as a way to make sharing data easier between trading partners has become the key enabling technology for projects we are just now envisioning.
Q: Do you expect to see more activity on the part of receivers in terms of requiring standardized data in the next year or two?
A: Absolutely. You're seeing it already, especially from the retail segment. The challenge will be for these data receivers to work within the standards and not to create any special requirements for their vendors. The right approach is to work with the committee to standardize any new requirements and advance the standards consistently for all. When there is only one way to exchange information, everyone wins.
