Soluciones por Microondas

5.2.1. Classification of EP- software solution in the quadrant model

This section presents the visualised comparison of the assessed vendor solutions. As in chapter 4.2. stated distinguishes the classification between four main types. Namely, the “Emerging Contender”, “Innovative Specialist”, “Established Generalist and “Innovative Allstar”. As before explained characterises the “Emerging Contender” a vendor who provides little e-purchasing solutions, with limited innovations and is therefore depicted in the left bottom corner of the quadrant. The (Transitional) “Innovative Specialist” offers a limited number of e-purchasing solutions. However, the offered EP-solutions have an increased depth and (are on an innovative way to) support many I4.0 capabilities within the e-purchasing context and is therefore found in the top left corner. The Established Generalist offers a brought variety of EP-solutions that cover many Source-to-Pay applications, but their solutions miss the sophistication of Industry 4.0 capabilities. Hence, the Established Generalist is presented in the right bottom corner. The (Transitional) Innovative All Star has a brought offering of EP-software solutions. The offered solutions cover many Source-to-pay elements and (are on an innovative way to) support many

Industry 4.0 requirements. Hence, the Innovative All Star is depicted in the right top corner. In the following, five linked quadrant models will be presented, namely the General Overview, P2P detail view, Controlling/KPI detail view, Sourcing detail view and Supplier detail view. It is remarkable, that no separate detail view for the fusion of physical and virtual systems is displayed, due to the fact that only SAP Ariba, Zycus, Onventis and Netfira supported this function.

5.2.2. No evaluated EP- vendor meets Industry 4.0 capabilities to a high extent

Figure 10: Classification of assessed vendors – General Overview

The quadrant provides a general overview of the assessed solutions. It is noteworthy, that the majority of vendors is within a close range and in the “Transitional Innovative All Star” section. This might have two reasons. Firstly, the largest proportion of assessed vendors provide full suit solutions. Hence, these vendors score on the far right of the quadrant model. Secondly, even though the most vendors advertise their technological superiority, it has been pointed out that none of the vendors could stand out from a technological Industry 4.0 point of view. This might be due to the fact that the sample chosen oriented on the international top-fair e-Lösungstage, where a strong competition is represented. However, also smaller vendors could be assessed properly and were able to score within a close range or even higher, such as Sievo.

Lastly, it is meaningful, that no vendor provides extremely sophisticated Industry 4.0 solutions. Hence, no vendor scored in the upper 25 percent of the quadrant, but some

vendors are in the before elaborated transition phase towards this position. Thus, the visualisation of the quadrant supports the statements from the section 5.1.

5.2.3. The P2P quadrant displays a strong focus on operative purchasing solutions

Figure 11: Classification of assessed vendors – Purchase-to-Payment

The “P2P-Quadrant” shows that many vendors provide a width operative e-purchasing solution. In addition, many assessed vendors are pictured within the “Transitional Innovative All Star” section. Compared to the “General Overview Quadrant” the results displayed have a higher sophistication towards meeting Industry 4.0 capabilities. Hence, the visualisation supports the fact that many vendors provide forward oriented P2P functionalities, such as advanced Invoice processing capabilities. Moreover, the degree of integration in this section is in particular high, due to advanced e-ordering possibilities. Nonetheless, no vendor stands out in this P2P detail view or reaches a very sophisticated Industry 4.0 maturity.

5.2.4. Many smaller vendors scored lower in the Controlling / KPI classification

The distribution and placement of supported Controlling / KPI solutions is more diverse than the “Overall Classification” and “P2P-Quadrant”. The highest ranking has been achieved by Sievo, who provides key competencies within this section. Herby, the vendor supports outstanding data extraction capabilities and AI based Spend Data processing. Many full suit solution providers achieved also a “Transitional Innovative All Star”

position and vary mostly in the width of solutions offered. However, the visualisation supports the recognition that many smaller full-suit vendors lack of innovative analytical solutions.

Figure 12: Classification of assessed vendors – Controlling / KPI

5.2.5. Majority of vendors support a brought width of S2C solutions

The “Sourcing Quadrant” displays many assessed vendors in the stage of „Established Generalists”. However, leading vendors are placed in the “Transitional Innovative All Star” section. Moreover, Sievo can be considered as “Transitional Innovative Specialist” due to its comprehensive and strongly integrated “Contract Management” solution. It is noteworthy, that most Sourcing solutions scored on average lower compared to the P2P solutions. This confirms the statements of various e-purchasing vendors that it is less complicated to decrease human input and increase automation in purely operative processes.

Figure 13: Classification of assessed vendors – Sourcing

5.2.6 Supplier Management solutions differ mainly in the width of functionalities

Figure 14: Classification of assessed vendors – Supplier

The “Supplier Quadrant” displays the majority of assessed vendors in the “Established Generalist” stage. As can be seen in Figure 14, the technological sophistication of various solutions is in a close range with each other. However, SAP Ariba, Coupa and Basware provide the most comprehensive solution, whereas Jaggaer and Ivalua provide the most sophisticated solution. Allocation, as relatively small vendor lacks a width supplier solution with a high sophistication. Overall, the visualisation mirrors the statements from chapter 5.1.4, that most solutions provide a high horizontal and vertical integration but human intervention is largely required.