=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1439/paper11
|storemode=property
|title=Integrate your partners with interactive forms – automated processing of purchase order confirmations using SAP Interactive Forms by Adobe
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1439/paper11.pdf
|volume=Vol-1439
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/bpm/SchindlbeckK15
}}
==Integrate your partners with interactive forms – automated processing of purchase order confirmations using SAP Interactive Forms by Adobe==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1439/paper11.pdf
Integrate Your Partners with Interactive Forms
Automated Processing of Purchase Order Confirmations Using
SAP Interactive Forms by Adobe
Bernhard Schindlbeck, Peter Kleinschmidt
4process AG, Passau, Germany
{bernhard.schindlbeck,peter.kleinschmidt}@4process.de
Abstract. Connecting to business partners electronically is one of the most
important information technology management issues. Interactive forms enable
companies to automate processes with their vendors and customers. In
comparison to well discussed technologies like electronic data interchange
(EDI) or online portals, interactive forms are hardly considered in the literature
as an alternative business-to-business (B2B) technology. In this paper, we dis-
cuss the advantages of interactive forms and present a real-life scenario in
which they are used to integrate suppliers. In our case, an automotive industry
company uses SAP Interactive Forms by Adobe to process purchase order
confirmations in its SAP system. Based on an empirical study, we developed a
comparison scheme for B2B technologies. Interactive forms turned out to be the
best technology to support the purchase order confirmation process. We
describe the process flow and the implementation of the prototype. Subse-
quently, we present the results of a feedback round with the process owners of
the company which was carried out nine months after the introduction of the
new procedure with interactive forms. These results include an analysis of the
extent of use as well as some suggestions for the improvement of the solution.
Based on those findings we discuss useful enhancements for the application to
meet the adapted requirements and to accelerate technology adoption.
Keywords: Interactive Forms · SAP Interactive Forms by Adobe · Business-to-
Business · Integration · Purchase Order Confirmation · Purchasing Scenario ·
Process Automization · Procurement
1 Introduction
For some time, companies have been using information technologies (IT) like EDI or
online portals to support the data exchange between their business partners and them-
selves [1,2]. The benefit of using IT in B2B is confirmed by many studies. Therefore,
IT e.g. improve collaboration between firms [3], inventory turnover and delivery per-
formance [4] or performance indicators of the supply chain like time, costs, quality
and flexibility [5]. In spite of these positive impacts, many companies are still focus-
ing on the integration of a small part of their partners. Instead, the focus could be on
137
achieving a high technological diffusion to support the data exchange with as many of
them as possible [6]. Hence there is still room for new technologies which are able to
automate the data transfer between firms and which enable companies to integrate
more of their partners.
One of the technologies of interest here are interactive forms. Unlike EDI or online
portals, interactive forms are seldom found to be discussed as a technology to support
B2B processes in the scientific literature. In this paper, interactive forms are defined
as electronic forms which can be generated from an enterprise application – such as
enterprise resource planning (ERP) or customer relationship management (CRM) –
enriched with application-specific data. The form can be sent by e-mail to an external
recipient, who completes it with the requested data by using a free of charge software
and sends the form back to the application where the data entered are extracted and
processed automatically. Further processes might be initiated in addition.
This article presents a real-life scenario in which interactive forms are used to auto-
mate the recording of purchase order (PO) confirmations in the ERP system of an
automotive industry company. The scenario was implemented as a prototype and as
part of the doctoral dissertation of the first author [6]. In May 2015, nine months after
the production start (September 2014), we organized a feedback round with the pro-
cess owners of the purchasing department. In this paper, we are therefore able to dis-
cuss the following
• how the technology was established after that amount of time,
• what lessons can be learned after nine months of operational use and
• which improvements were suggested by the main actors in order to accelerate
technology adoption.
2 Initial Situation
The scenario was implemented for the company HEYCO-WERK Heynen GmbH &
Co. KG (http://www.heyco.de/). The enterprise was founded in 1937 and employs
about 900 people at production sites in Germany, Ireland and the Czech Republic.
HEYCO is a supplier for the automotive industry. The company produces hand tools,
plastic parts and forgings. Within the manufacturing process, many components are
needed from various vendors at home and abroad. Furthermore goods for mainte-
nance, repair and operations (MRO) are purchased from different suppliers. Some of
the most important vendors are integrated by EDI solutions, but PO confirmations for
delivery dates and quantities are not processed automatically yet. All in all, the data
transfer by EDI is only supported by less than 2% of all current suppliers. Because of
that situation, a solution for a more efficient handling of confirmed delivery dates and
quantities in the ERP system was needed.
Figure 1 shows the different steps of the PO confirmation process in its original ver-
sion before interactive forms were used.
138
extracts data and sent by e-mail
generates purchase or postal
order (PO) form
PO Form
SAP Supplier
enters confirmed data sends back purchase
into the system order confirmation
Purchasing Department
Fig. 1. Original process for purchase order confirmation
The process starts with the purchaser entering a PO in the ERP system. HEYCO uses
SAP ERP. When creating the PO, the purchaser determines the vendor and enters the
articles and their requested quantities and delivery dates. After saving the PO, the
system generates the PO form as a PDF document which is sent to the supplier where
the sales clerk in charge checks the availability of the requested articles. Depending
on the ATP (available-to-promise) situation he confirms or changes the quantities and
delivery dates. Then he sends back a PO confirmation document by surface mail or e-
mail. Subsequently, the purchaser has to find the corresponding PO in the SAP system
and enters the confirmed data (quantities, delivery dates and the PO confirmation
number of the vendor) for each PO item. From this moment, the material resource
planning (MRP) module in SAP uses the confirmed data for its computations, not the
requested delivery dates and quantities. This change makes it a critical moment for
MRP. As a last step, the purchaser archives the PO confirmation document for con-
trolling purposes.
The expenditure of time for entering a confirmation for one PO item amounted to 150
seconds on the average. Based on over 12,000 PO confirmations entered in 2012,
more than 500 hours of work could have been saved per year by automating this pro-
cess.
3 Selection of the Technology
The first step to be taken was to choose a suitable technology to support the process
with as many vendors as possible. We considered three types of solutions for auto-
mating the scenario described. These can be categorized as one-to-one and one-to-
many technologies [7] as well as interactive forms.
139
3.1 One-to-One
One-to-one includes technologies which are used to integrate each partner individual-
ly. These connections are characterized by a mutual exchange of information and
efficiency gains for both sides. It is a significant drawback that establishing these
connections requires specific investments for each partner. A typical example for one-
to-one is the automated exchange of business documents between the ERP systems of
two partners processing EDI or XML (extensible markup language) messages [8].
3.2 One-to-Many
One-to-many technologies enable companies to integrate their partners in a flexible
way, without extensive coordination. These can be implemented by portals [9], online
platforms or e-marketplaces [10] which are integrated with the ERP system of the
enterprise. However, these technologies usually force the interacting partner to enter
the required data into a web form manually. Efficiency gains due to the elimination of
a media break are therefore mostly on the side of the company which has implement-
ed the technology.
3.3 Interactive Forms
Interactive forms are electronic forms generated from an enterprise application [11].
They do not only contain application specific data, but also interactive elements like
input fields or dropdown lists. Users can enter data into the form and save them in a
structured way (mostly technically in XML structures). Because of the structured
storage of information, it is possible to extract the data entered and automatically
process them in the source application to eliminate media breaks and initiate further
processes. Furthermore interactive forms can be dynamic, which means that they can
change their layout depending on user actions. So it is e.g. possible to provide a user-
friendly form. Certain areas are hidden and only shown if the user needs them because
of his inputs. Embedded scripting allows reactions to user actions like warning or
error messages as well as calculations of key figures, which are based on the values
entered. Examples for providers of interactive forms are Adobe with its product Ado-
be Interactive Forms or LUCOM with the application FormsForWeb.
One may argue that interactive forms belong to the category one-to-many. Indeed
they share a number of characteristics. Just as one-to-many, interactive forms inte-
grate partners in a flexible way without any individual implementation effort. More-
over, the media break in the process is only eliminated on the side of the company
that generates the form and processes it in its ERP after it was completed. Therefore
efficiency gains are one-sided as well. After a detailed analysis, however, it seems
justified to consider interactive forms as a category of its own with some unique and
relevant characteristics. One of these is the offline capability of interactive forms. In
contrast to web forms, which are used in typical one-to-many scenarios, there is no
need for a connection to the internet when completing an interactive form. Usually all
data and scripting are embedded in the form, so no external data sources are needed
140
during the completion. The offline capability enables users to fill out the form even if
they have no access to the internet. So in this point they work like paper documents.
Offline capability generally goes hand in hand with the possibility of saving interme-
diate results and of printing the form. So users can interrupt the entering of data, save
the form and complete it later. They can also retain a copy for their own controlling
purposes, also as a paper based version. These characteristics make interactive forms
more similar to paper documents. Hence, interactive forms have advantages in con-
verting paper based scenarios to electronic processes. Furthermore, in the case of SAP
interactive Forms by Adobe, most users are well acquainted with Adobe Forms via
other environments.
3.4 Comparison of the Technologies
We go on to describe the reasons for our decision to use interactive forms for the
automation of the process presented. We set out to find the most suitable technology
by comparing the three categories described above with respect to the requirements of
the purchase department of HEYCO. Relevant entry barriers for one-to-one and one-
to-many technologies had been identified before by an empirical study with 95 Ger-
man companies of the manufacturing industry by the first author [6]. Based on the
most important barriers determined in the study and the characteristics of the technol-
ogies, a comparison scheme was developed consisting of six indicators:
• Evaluation of Return on Investment (ROI)
• Process Know-how and User Acceptance
• Flexibility
• Partner Acceptance
• Possible Level of Automation
• Possible Functional Scope
We proceed to describe the six characteristics in detail.
Project managers are used to having to fight to receive the budget for the implementa-
tion of a technology, and they always need to be able to point out very clearly in
which way the new solution generates significant benefits for the company. Depend-
ing on the technology, it may be more or less difficult to calculate the ROI. In general,
one-to-one technologies are used to support one specific process. For example, enter-
prises electronically exchange orders with their partners using EDI. In this case, it is
comparatively easy to determine the costs for the implementation and benefits due to
efficiency and quality gains because orders do not have to be manually entered in the
system anymore. Like one-to-one, interactive forms usually support a single process
and can be evaluated well. In contrast, one-to-many technologies like online platforms
or portals frequently provide a wider range of functionalities. They are implemented
not just to simplify one process, but to support a wide range of scenarios which lead
to more extensive projects. These make it more difficult to estimate all costs and ben-
efits and to break them down to the supported processes. Consequently, it can be stat-
141
ed that, regarding the indicator Evaluation of ROI, one-to-one and interactive forms
have advantages over one-to-many technologies.
The use of technologies in B2B often leads to significant changes in the process. Tak-
ing the example from before, in which orders are exchanged by EDI, we have a fun-
damental modification of the original process. In our example, the purchaser created
the PO in the system, printed it and sent it to the vendor. With the EDI solution, after
entering the PO, a sales order is automatically created in the system of the vendor.
The former PO form is obsolete. In addition, one-to-many solutions often replace
paper based or electronic forms by web forms. Users need to be trained in the new
process and might refuse the technology due to the changes in the process flow. Inter-
active forms, though, mostly do not touch the actual process and are similar to paper
documents, because of their offline ability. Thus interactive forms do not require
much training and are likely to be more accepted by the users than other B2B tech-
nologies.
Flexibility describes how easily a new partner can be integrated by the solution. The
integration of a partner with one-to-one technologies requires individual coordination.
Because of the mutual interaction, data structures have to be mapped, interfaces must
be implemented, and communication channels for the data exchange have to be estab-
lished. Therefore, previous investments are lost (sunk costs) when the transaction is
not executed any more. An implementation only makes sense if a high volume of data
is exchanged between partners and if the business relationship is stable. So one-to-one
is preferred for strategic partners. To participate in a one-to-many solution, it is usual-
ly sufficient to log on to an online platform with a provided user name and password.
With interactive forms, it is even more easy. Everybody who receives and completes a
form can take part in the process.
There are (at least) two sides in B2B and it is very important that the partner is willing
to take part in the process. Dealing with one-to-one technologies, he faces the same
challenges as the company itself. So only important partners with a high volume of
data exchange will accept the specific investments to establish a one-to-one connec-
tion. One-to-many technologies, on the other hand, only eliminate media breaks on
the side of the implementing company. Hence it may cause even higher demands on
the partners in a process supported by one-to-many, because they have to enter data
into a web form manually. Like one-to-many, interactive forms only avoid media
breaks for the company which generates and processes it. But because of their offline
ability, they have some advantages compared to web forms (one-to-many). The part-
ner can keep a copy of the form for his own controlling purposes. He does not have to
enter all the data in one step, but he can save intermediate versions and complete the
form later. What is more, he does not need to log on to a platform. He can provide
data as soon as he has received the interactive form e.g. by e-mail.
The highest Level of Automation can be achieved by one-to-one. Only if the systems
of both transaction partners are integrated, a free-of-media-break data exchange is
possible. On the other hand, one-to-many technologies have limited capabilities to
automate processes, because data processing is only automated on one side. But at
least, it is possible for the user to execute more than one process step when using a
web form. Web forms usually are connected to a database, therefore information en-
142
tered could be handled immediately in the backend systems and further steps could be
initiated based on the input. Interactive forms perform rather weakly in this matter.
Due to their offline ability, all the information which is needed during the data entry,
like data for validation or different layouts and data screens, has to be stored in the
electronic document. Of course, a document can never compete against a database in
that respect.
By Functional Scope, we describe the range of different functionalities offered by a
technology to support the interaction between companies. One-to-one technologies
are powerful in automating on both sides. So they are able to optimize process flows
across companies, but their functions are generally limited to the transfer of data.
Limited resources due to the offline capability force developers to keep interactive
forms simple. They are mostly used as data collectors with basic functions like valida-
tions or the ability to change their layout. One-to-many is most powerful in this cate-
gory. These technologies run on servers and are connected to databases, so they have
access to almost unlimited resources. Besides plain entry masks for data collection,
nearly every type of application could be developed based on these platforms. This
includes the integration of media files, data sharing, collaboration rooms and much
more.
Based on the explanations above, we visualize the evaluation of the three technology
categories as network diagrams in figure 2 and 3. Before we explain why we have
chosen interactive forms as solution, we want to specify the requirements of HEYCO
on the software:
• To get the budget for the implementation, it was important that the necessary in-
vestments could be justified. Therefore a qualified calculation of the ROI was de-
manded.
• Purchasers should be able to use the technology without intensive training. The
new process has to be as similar as possible to the old one.
• It must be possible to integrate nearly every partner. Even B- and C-partners with
low data exchange volume have to be considered.
In a first step, we excluded one-to-one as a solution worth considering. As explained
above and visualized in figure 2, one-to-one is not suitable to integrate B- and C-
partners because of its missing flexibility. The required individual coordination with
each partner is only profitable if a high volume of data is exchanged. Businesses of
minor relevance will not agree to make the specific investments.
143
Fig. 2. Evaluation of one-to-one technologies
As figure 3 shows, one-to-many as well as interactive forms are proper technologies
for integrating all types of partners due to their advantages in Flexibility and Partner
Acceptance. Indeed, a portal solution as well as interactive forms were shortlisted for
HEYCO. The first reason why the purchasers preferred interactive forms was the
calculation of the ROI. Costs and benefits could be easily calculated. On the cost side
expenses for implementation, infrastructure and licenses had to be taken into account.
On the benefit side the estimated time savings were already sufficient to be profitable.
The portal solution would have provided some additional functions for the vendor like
the possibility to print HEYCO compatible delivery notes. But for HEYCO it was
more important to support the core process with a computable cost-benefit ratio.
Secondly, the original process flow hardly changes with interactive forms. The PO
confirmation document is replaced by the interactive form. The procedure remains the
same. With the portal, the PO confirmation form would have been replaced by a web
form. Instead of just completing the PO confirmation document, the vendor would
have been forced to log on to the portal, search for his POs and enter the confirma-
tions. Because of the marginal adaptions in the process with interactive forms, pur-
chasers will not need much training. Therefore interactive forms are better in meeting
the second requirement due to the advantages indicated by Process Know-how and
User Acceptance (figure 3).
Thirdly, due to higher ratings in Flexibility and Partner Acceptance, interactive forms
are most suitable to integrate nearly every partner. The supplier does not need any
specific technical skills. He just completes the received form and sends it back.
The PO confirmation process is a simple and linear procedure. The vendor just needs
to enter the confirmed delivery dates, quantities and his order confirmation number.
Only one process step (entering the confirmations) has to be covered by the interac-
tive form. Therefore the lower ratings of the indicators Level of Automation and Func-
tional Scope of interactive forms compared to one-to-many technologies do not matter
in this scenario.
144
Fig. 3. Evaluation of one-to-many technologies and interactive forms
4 Implementation of the Scenario with Interactive Forms
The solution was created following a rapid prototyping approach. Based on the initial
requirements of HEYCO, a first prototype was presented to the main actors. Integrat-
ing their feedback, this prototype was then refined step by step. In the end, the solu-
tion consists of four main components:
• form processing
• status management
• inbound processing
• PO confirmation monitor
The form processing module generates the e-mail with the interactive PO confirma-
tion form as an attachment as soon as a purchaser creates a PO in the system. It covers
the selection of the application data in SAP ERP. In addition, it implements the inter-
face for the transfer of the application data to the interactive form as well as the form
layout of the PO confirmation.
The status management tracks the status of each form. Every mailed form is identified
by a globally unique identifier (GUID), which is generated from the form processing
module. With its own data model developed in SAP, the status management docu-
ments, among other things, the timestamps
• when the form was sent to the supplier
• when it was received back and
• when it was processed by the purchaser in SAP with regard to that GUID.
Possible status are ‘confirmation not received yet’, ‘ready to process’ (after it is re-
ceived from the vendor, but not yet processed by the purchaser), ‘completed’ and
‘form received multiple times’.
145
The inbound processing module extracts the data of incoming forms. The extracted
content is then validated, and the database tables of the status management are updat-
ed. Archiving received forms in a content server is another function implemented in
this module.
The PO confirmation monitor reports on the content of the tables of the status man-
agement and enables the user to display all generated forms with their status. Moreo-
ver it is possible to show the archived PO confirmation. Received PO confirmations
can be processed with the monitor.
5 Process Flow of the Interactive Scenario
The flow of the purchase order confirmation process with interactive forms (figure 4)
is very similar to the original procedure (figure 1). Only the manual transfer of the PO
confirmation form to the SAP system is replaced by the automatic processing of the
interactive form.
extracts data and sent by e-mail
generates interactive
PO confirmation
request Interactive Form
SAP Supplier
automatic processing returns completed
of the confirmed data form by e-mail
in the system
Interactive Form
Fig. 4. Process for purchase order confirmation with interactive forms
Saving the PO in SAP ERP generates, in addition to the PO document, an interactive
PO confirmation form which is sent to the supplier. It looks similar to the PO docu-
ment and contains the requested delivery dates and quantities for each PO item. Inter-
active input fields allow the user to enter the confirmed dates and quantities as well as
the order confirmation number of the vendor. Mandatory fields are marked by a red
frame. The red frame disappears as soon as the field is filled. So the user can easily
identify all the fields where he still has to enter values.
Figure 5 shows a plain example for a PO confirmation with one item. The company
requests 80 pieces of a material, which should be delivered on 18 December 2015. In
our example the sales clerk of the supplier confirms the quantity and the delivery date
(step 1 in figure 5). He can then send back the form to the SAP system of HEYCO by
using a special send-button in the form (step 2 in figure 5). With a click on that but-
146
ton, a number of validations are performed. For example, all mandatory fields have to
be filled before the form can be returned. If all validations are successful, the interac-
tive functions of the form are switched off. No changes are possible any more and the
document can be used for audit-proof archiving. In addition, an e-mail is created au-
tomatically. It already contains the e-mail-address of the SAP system as the receiver
and the completed PO confirmation form as an attachment. As soon as the e-mail is
delivered to the SAP ERP of HEYCO, the data entered are extracted by the inbound
processing module and stored in the database of the system. Additionally the form is
automatically stored in the content server with a link to the PO in SAP.
1) complete
2) send
Fig. 5. Example for completing an interactive PO confirmation form
The purchaser can use the PO confirmation monitor to display received PO confirma-
tions. The monitor shows one reporting line for each confirmed delivery date with all
the important information (e.g. requested and confirmed delivery dates and quantities,
vendor name, material, related PO number and item, timestamps of the sending and
receiving, etc.). Specific exception groups highlight critical confirmations. Possible
exceptions are:
• The confirmed quantity and/or delivery date deviates from the requested one.
• The confirmation was rejected by the vendor.
• The related PO item is already confirmed in SAP ERP (e.g. because some-
body already entered the confirmation manually).
• The related PO item was deleted in SAP ERP in the meantime.
• The confirmation is not up to date because the requested quantity or delivery
date of the related PO item was changed in SAP ERP in the meantime.
With the monitor, the purchaser can check all the actual confirmations at a glance.
The exception groups enable him to identify problematic confirmations in a very effi-
147
cient way. He can take a look at the archived documents and clarify deviating confir-
mations with the vendor. All the accepted confirmations can be selected and pro-
cessed with one click. After that step, the confirmations are transferred to the related
PO items in SAP ERP. Henceforth, SAP MRP considers the confirmed dates and
quantities. With the solution, the purchaser does not have to enter confirmations man-
ually anymore. The archiving of the form is obsolete. All confirmations can be moni-
tored easily and well-arranged.
6 Extent of the Use, Feedback and Ideas for Improvement
In September 2014, the purchasing department of HEYCO started to use interactive
forms for automating the PO confirmation process with its vendors. Nine months later
a feedback round was carried out to discuss the experience gained in using the appli-
cation. In general, the purchasers were convinced by the quality of the solution. They
underlined the following advantages:
• The solution simplifies the general process of recording PO confirmations in SAP
ERP. Therefore it is very helpful in daily business.
• From the point of view of most vendors, it is a ‘low-tech-solution’. This means
adopting the new process only implies a slight modification of the original one. So
many suppliers were easily convinced to accept the new procedure.
• Vendors who have used interactive forms once work with them in a reliable way.
• The PO confirmation monitor is easy to use. It provides a good overview of sent
and outstanding PO confirmations. Received data can be handled in a very efficient
way. Critical PO confirmations are easily identified by the exception groups, while
the rest can be processed with one click.
• The transparency of the process is improved because incoming forms are archived
with a link to the PO in SAP ERP.
In the first month of usage, 45 different vendors confirmed POs with interactive
forms. After that, about 15 new vendors were integrated every month (figure 6). Fig-
ure 6 also illustrates that the average number of suppliers using interactive forms
within one month grew only slowly from 45 in September 2014 to 60 in April 2015.
This emphasizes the fact that vendors with less than one PO per month and therefore a
comparatively low data volume can be integrated with the solution, too. So the solu-
tion is suitable for integrating all types of vendors.
148
Fig. 6. Development of vendors participating in the new process since September 2014
Figure 7 describes the development of the percentages of PO confirmations processed
with interactive forms in relation to all recorded PO confirmations in SAP ERP. The
blue line shows the percentage for each month. The red line is a logarithmic trend
line, which was calculated with the monthly data. In the first month (September 2014)
HEYCO was able to cover already 14% of the data volume with interactive forms.
This is quite impressive compared to the adoption of other B2B technologies. The
coverage increased strongly in October 2014, but then it declined again and settled at
a level of around 23%. This underlines the fact that the solution is also used to inte-
grate C partners, because an increase of the participating vendors does not lead to an
increase of the monthly coverage by the same extent.
Fig. 7. Percentage of the PO confirmations processed with interactive forms
Nevertheless, we expected a better adoption of the solution during the period of eight
months. Therefore we asked the purchasers of HEYCO for reasons why the percent-
age could not be increased faster. It turned out that – even with interactive forms –
there are some barriers for adoption and that there are some challenges to convince
149
vendors to work with the solution. Before a vendor receives his first interactive form,
he is informed by the responsible purchaser. The purchaser explains the new proce-
dure in order to obtain a commitment of the supplier. Some vendors try to avoid a
change in the process, even if it is just a slight one. The main reason for this seems to
be a general mistrust towards process changes. A good way to support purchasers in
their attempts to remove the concerns of their suppliers in this matter would be the
development of a conversation guideline. A short documentation of the PO confirma-
tion process with interactive forms could also be provided as a handout for the ven-
dor. In this way, the communication with vendors is standardized.
Vendors give a second main reason why they refuse to work with the interactive
forms: They miss a possibility to confirm prices. They argue that they are not able to
confirm a PO of HEYCO if purchase prices have changed and the prices on the inter-
active PO confirmation are not up to date. So it seems important that the solution is
enhanced by a function to change and confirm prices in the interactive form.
Accelerating technology adoption could be achieved by another thought provided by
the feedback round: users suggested the implementation of a possibility to report sta-
tistics of the extent of the use in SAP ERP. Among other things these statistics might
include the following key figures:
• the monthly percentage of received PO confirmations via interactive forms in rela-
tion to sent interactive forms for each vendor (response rate)
• the monthly percentage of PO confirmations processed by interactive forms in
relation to all the recorded PO confirmations for each vendor (coverage of data
volume)
• the monthly percentage of PO confirmations processed by interactive forms in
relation to all the recorded PO confirmations for each purchaser (internal adoption)
It seems important to include the first two vendor specific key figures in the official
supplier evaluation which is generated automatically in SAP ERP. It is used in period-
ical reviews with the supplier. As part of the evaluation, the supplier can be encour-
aged to make use of the technology. If the third key figure is used to agree upon pur-
chaser specific targets for process automation and to report them, this can be seen as a
good way to motivate the purchaser to advance the use of the technology.
With these activities, the technology adoption can be accelerated and the percentage
of processed PO confirmations by interactive forms increased.
7 Conclusion
We have described some challenges that are faced in the process of introducing far-
reaching technology changes. It must be stated, however, that the general results of
the first eight months are very satisfactory: up to 31% processed PO confirmations by
interactive forms and 133 integrated vendors.
This is true in particular for a medium-sized company like HEYCO. The main process
actors gave a positive feedback. After the implementation of the improvements
150
planned, they are confident to achieve an even better and faster adoption of the tech-
nology.
Interactive forms were evaluated as a suitable solution to integrate all types of B2B
partners. The positive experience with the PO confirmation scenario underlines their
capability to enable companies to automate more of their processes with a larger
number of their partners. The comparison scheme we developed can help decision
makers to choose the appropriate technology for their scenario.
The feedback round also discussed more processes which could be supported by in-
teractive forms. Interesting examples were the implementation of requests for quota-
tions, 8D reports or supplier’s declarations. Further projects with interactive forms are
being planned. So we are confident to be able to present new implementations and
scenarios soon.
References
1. Allen, B. J., Crum, M. R., Braunschweig, C. D.: The US motor carrier industry: the extent
and nature of EDI use. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Man-
agement 8, Vol. 22, 27-34 (1992)
2. Hart, P. J., Saunders, C. S.: Emerging Electronic Partnerships: Antecedents and Dimen-
sions of EDI Use from the Supplier's Perspective. Journal of Management Information
Systems 14, 87-111 (1998)
3. Campo, S., Rubio, N., Yagüe, M. J.: Information Technology Use and Firm's Perceived
Performance in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business to Business Marketing 17,
Vol. 4, 336-364 (2010)
4. Li, G. et al.: The Impact of IT Implementation on Supply Chain Integration and Perfor-
mance. International Journal of Production Economics 120, Vol. 1, 125-138 (2009)
5. Wecker, R.: Internetbasiertes Supply Chain Management, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag,
Wiesbaden (2006), Diss. Univ. Witten/Herdecke (2006)
6. Schindlbeck, B.: Verbreitung und Durchdringung von Business-to-Business Technologien.
Interaktive Formulare als alternative Technologie zur Unterstützung des Informationsaus-
tauschs zwischen Unternehmen, Logos Verlag, Berlin (2015), Diss. Univ. Passau (2015)
7. Wirtz, B. W., Bronnenmayer, M.: B2B-Geschäftsmodelle im Electronic Business. Wirt-
schaftswissenschaftliches Studium 40, Vol. 9, 454-461 (2011)
8. Wüstner, E.: Standardisierung und Konvertierung: Ökonomische Bewertung und Anwen-
dung am Beispiel von XML/EDI. Shaker, Aachen (2005)
9. Gmelch, O.: User-Centric Application Integration in Enterprise Portal Systems. Eul,
Lohmar (2012), Diss. Univ. Regensburg (2012)
10. Petersen, K. J., Ogden, J. A., Carter, P. L.: B2B e-marketplaces: a typology by functionali-
ty. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37, Vol. 1, 4-18
(2007)
11. Hauser, J. et. al.: SAP Interactive Forms by Adobe. 2nd ed., Galileo Press, Bonn (2011)
151