|
EIDX Distributor Scenario 2
Design Win, Version 1.0
Design Win is a process whereby a component supplier offers financial
incentives to get its products designed into other company's products.
Achieving a design win secures a customer's business early in the
design process, long before the first volume orders are placed.
A supplier only offers Design Win incentives for a given product
for a limited period of time. In the distribution channel, the incentives
are offered to a distributor who brokers a design between its customer
and a supplier. The distributor is given a list of eligible products.
The distributor's sales engineers work with the distributor's customers
who are designing products and look for opportunities to have eligible
components designed in to the customers' new products. When an opportunity
arises, the distributor submits a Design Win registration request
to the component supplier. The component supplier responds, and
either awards the Design Win to the distributor or denies the request.
- The first design registration submitted for a specific customer-customer
product-supplier component combination wins the design registration;
subsequent requests from other distributors for the same customer-customer
product-supplier component combination are denied.
- If the distributor's customer designs a component part into
more than one product, one design registration may be submitted
for each customer product.
- If the distributor's customer designs more than one eligible
component product into one of its products, one design registration
may be submitted for each eligible component product.
After the design is registered, agreed upon conditions must be
met before any financial incentives are awarded; incentives may
be awarded when various milestones are achieved.
Scope: This scenario includes the routine public components of
the Design Win scenario. Models are created for common exceptions
that are good candidates for automation. Not every possible exception
situation is modeled, because there are events that are too rare
to justify the cost of automation, or too complex to be automated
- they require the intelligence of human beings for resolution.
All business processes touch, or are adjacent to other business
processes. Design Win has the potential for connecting to the complex
processes involved in product design and financial adjustments.
In order to keep focused on the events that are unique to Design
Win, only models dealing with registrations and incentive claims
are in scope for modeling this scenario.
The current draft of the Design Win Scenario doesn’t cover
the details of exchange and/or access to product technical data.
Collaborative engineering applications are still in an evolving
state and EIDX will monitor developments and add to this documentation
as appropriate.
Overview (Use Case) Diagram
Click here to view a larger image.
Narration
| Step |
Description |
| 1. |
Pre-Order Model 9: The component supplier sends
a list of products eligible for Design Win incentives. These
are components that the supplier would like to see its customers
or its distributor's customers design into their products. |
| 2. |
Pre-Order Model 10: When a distributor's customer
has agreed to design-in a component eligible for Design Win
incentives, the distributor sends a Design Win Registration
request to the component supplier. The request may include a
request for Ship-from-Stock and Debit Authorization so that
the distributor can submit debit claims for stock shipped at
a non-discounted price as soon as the distributor has met all
the criteria for Design Win incentive awards. The component
supplier responds with either an approval or a denial. The component
supplier may deny the registration if another registration for
the same product and same end-customer has already been approved. |
| 3. |
(Optional). Pre-Order Model 11: At any time,
the distributor may request the status of some or all open Design
Win registrations. The component supplier sends the report back
in response. The component supplier may also send the report
unsolicited, as agreed with the distributor, when status changes
are made or per a pre-agreed schedule. |
| 4. |
Distributor Scenario 1 and component Debits
and Credits Model 5: When the distributor ships a product that
has an approved Design Win registration, and the goods shipped
are goods that the distributor purchased at the non-discounted
price, then upon satisfying the criteria for Design Win incentive
awards, the distributor submits one or more debit claims to
the component supplier, and the component supplier sends back
a response. The response may approve or deny a debit claim. |
| 5. |
Debits and Credits Model 9: When the distributor
has satisfied the criteria for Design Win incentive awards,
the distributor sends a Design Win claim to the component supplier,
and the component supplier sends back a response. The response
may approve or deny a claim. |
Process Activities
Few companies automate an entire business process all at once. A Design
Win business process may be implemented in multiple steps, as represented
by the component business models contained in the scenario. Some companies
may decide not to automate some parts of the process if an ROI analysis
indicates that automating that part is not cost-effective.
Activity Diagram
Click here to view a larger image.
Narrative
| Step |
Description |
| A. |
Start state A occurs when a
supplier of electronic components products wants to send out
a new or modified list of products eligible for Design Win incentives.
The list may be published to several distributors. The
product is eligible for the incentives only for a specified
time period, then that product is removed from the eligible
products list. Updated lists are published periodically.
|
| 1. |
Eligible Parts List.
This is usually a separate list but could be incorporated into
price catalog. |
| C. |
Start state C occurs when distributor's
field engineer starts working with a customer on providing components
for a new product design. |
| 2. |
The distributor and its customer
begin the process of sourcing components needed for the customer's
new product design. |
| 3. |
As part of the design process,
components eligible for Design Win incentives will be reviewed
to see if any are suitable candidates for the design of the
customer's product. |
| D |
At end state D, it is determined
that none of the eligible components are suitable or that suitable
components are not eligible for Design Win incentives (no Design
Win Opportunity). The distributor may still wish to pursue
Ship-from-Stock and Debit authorization for the components designed
into the customer's product (Distributor Scenario 1). |
| E |
Start state E occurs when the
distributor wants to request a change to a Design Win Registration.
|
| 4. |
When a distributor's customer
has agreed to design-in a component eligible for Design Win
incentives, the distributor sends a Design Win Registration
request to the component supplier. The request may include
a request for Ship-from-Stock and Debit Authorization so that
the distributor can submit debit claims for stock shipped at
non-discounted price as soon as the distributor has met all
the criteria for Design Win incentive awards. The component
supplier responds with either an approval or a denial.
The component supplier may deny the registration if another
registration for the same product and same end-customer has
already been approved. |
| F |
At end-state F, distributor
may not have been awarded a Design Win, but may have received
Ship-from-Stock and Debit authorization. Refer to Distributor
Scenario 1. The distributor and its customer may
still continue to work together on the new design even if no
win was obtained; the component product in question may still
be the best one for the customer's new product. |
| 5. |
When new products are developed,
the process is the same whether or not a Design Win opportunity
exists. However, when there is a Design Win opportunity,
there may be a greater urgency to complete the design rapidly
so that a market opportunity is not lost. The design process
can take weeks to months, so a significant period of time may
elapse between successfully registering a design the first event
that qualifies for an incentive award. |
| 6. |
The distributor processes purchase
orders from its customer. There may be orders for samples,
for a prototype run, and eventually, production orders. |
| 7. |
When processing an order from
its customer, the distributor may request that the component
supplier provide updated status of Design Win registrations.
The component supplier responds with a status report. |
| G |
Start state G indicates
that the registration status report may be requested at any
time that the distributor wants to do an audit or perform data
base synchronization with the supplier. |
| 8. |
(Optional) The distributor
reports point-of-sales transactions to the component supplier,
per the appropriate Sales Reporting Scenario. Sales may
be matched to Design Win claims. Timing important to reconcile
claims with POS data. This step is optional because the
timing of claims and POS reporting are often different.
For example, claims may be sent weekly and the POS report monthly,
or the POS reporting could be daily and the claims done monthly. |
| 9. |
In the back-end application,
the distributor does extensive, iterative analyses of relevant
data to see if criteria for Design Win incentives have been
met. This is complicated by the fact that different component
suppliers set different criteria for eligibility. This
process is iterative, since there may be more than one level
of incentives that the distributor can qualify for. |
| 10. |
In the back-end application,
the component distributor does extensive, iterative analyses
of relevant data to see if criteria for incentives are being
met and to see if estimates for market performance are up to
expectations. |
| H. |
At end state H, the distributor
has determined that it's not yet eligible for Design Win claims.
The distributor may not be eligible for discount and/or bonus
until a sales quota or other condition has been satisfied
within a specified time frame. Other conditions include the
achievement of various milestones in the NPI process, including
but not limited to: 1) distributor's customer has designed
in the supplier's component, 2) customer has placed initial
order for prototype, 3) customer is using the supplier's component
in production.
The distributor will continue to perform ongoing analyses
(step 9) until it is determined that criteria have been met.
|
| I. |
At end state I, the supplier
has performed an iteration of data analysis for Design Win component
products. If sales are meeting expectations, the supplier
willwait for the distributor to submit claims for incentives.
If sales are not meeting expectations, the supplier may treat
this as an exception requiring follow-up action. Such
action requires complex human interaction and is handled manually. |
| J |
At start state J the Debit
Claim process may be invoked if distributor's re-evaluation
of data indicates that criteria for eligibility have been met.
|
| 11. |
If eligible,
the distributor may submit a debit claim upon reselling the
component supplier's product. The component supplier will
send a response that confirms or denies the claim. If
the debit claim is approved, the distributor debits the appropriate
amount from what the distributor owes the component supplier
for other transactions. See Distributor Scenario 1and
component model Debits and Credits Model 5 for details. |
| K. |
At end state K, the distributor
has determined that it's not yet eligible for Design Win bonus
awards/rebate claims. The distributor will continue to
perform ongoing analyses (step 9) until it is determined that
criteria have been met. |
| L. |
At start state L, Design
Win Claim process may be invoked if distributor's re-evaluation
of data indicates that criteria for eligibility have been met.
|
| 12. |
If eligible, the distributor
may submit a Design claim upon meeting the criteria for Design
Win incentives. The component supplier will send a response
that confirms or denies the claim. See component model
Debits and Credits Model 9 for details. |
| M. |
The process ends when eligibility
period for Design Win incentives has ended. |
Implementation Options
When implementation options for Design Win are discussed, the
conversation quickly moves to a discussion about all the design and
statistical data that is needed for making important design decisions.
The exchanges unique to Design Win, such as Design Win Registrations
and Design Win Claims, almost seem trivial by comparison. This probably
explains why there are no legacy EDI messages for these activities.
There are some legacy EDI messages for design data, but historically,
they have been problematic. In particular, the volumes of design data
and sizes of CAD/CAM files were very expensive to transfer electronically
prior to the proliferation of the internet. In the legacy environment,
a single CAD/CAM file took 2 hours to transmit at the then revolutionary
rate of 19200 baud, at a cost of $200 or more.
Many of the basic technology options apply theoretically for the
Design Registrations and Design Win Claims, but for design data,
practical application has turned out to be difficult because of
the amount of information that must be synchronized between distributor
and component supplier. Currently, there is no one technology that
can be declared as robust.
| Assessment of Technology Options
for Design Win |
| |
Technology Option |
Design Win Registrations/Claims |
Product Design and Statistical
Data |
| 1.0 |
"Traditional"
EDI via a VAN |
Don't exist |
Not practical |
| 2.0 |
Client EDI application
with a VAN |
Don't exist |
Not practical |
| 3.0 |
EDI over the Internet - Point-to-Point
(EDIINT) |
Don't exist |
Not practical |
| 3.0 |
Integrated B2B via the
Internet, no VAN |
| |
3b |
EDI over the Internet - Point-to-Point (EDIINT) |
Don't exist |
Not practical |
| |
3c |
RosettaNet XML |
Recommended
Option |
Recommended
Option |
| |
3d |
OAGIS XML |
Don't exist |
Recommended
Option |
| |
3e |
Other XML |
Don't exist |
Unknown |
| 4.0 |
Integrated B2B via 3rd Party (VANs
and ISPs) |
| |
4b |
Legacy EDI formats - ASC X12 and EDIFACT |
Don't exist |
Not practical |
| |
4c |
RosettaNet XML |
Recommended
Option |
Recommended
Option |
| |
4d |
OAGIS XML |
Don't exist |
Recommended
Option |
| |
4e |
Other XML |
Don't exist |
Unknown |
| 5.0 |
Web Applications |
| |
5a |
Buyer's Web Application (using Web Forms),
with or without back-end integration |
|
|
| |
5a1 |
Buyer manages own web application
in own extranet |
Not a best practice; if web
application used, its usually the supplier's. |
Recommended
Option |
| |
5a3 |
Third-party web application used,
with buyer-specific forms/templates |
Not a best practice |
Recommended
Option |
| |
5b |
Seller's Web Application (using
Web Forms), with or without back-end integration |
Recommended
Option |
Recommended
Option |
| |
5b1 |
Seller manages own web application
in own extranet |
Recommended
Option |
Recommended
Option |
| |
5b3 |
Third-party web application used,
with seller-specific forms/templates |
Recommended
Option |
Recommended
Option |
| Emerging Technologies |
| 6.0 |
Collaborative (shared) Applications |
| |
6a |
Trading Communities - Exchanges, Hubs, etc. |
Not applicable |
Not practical |
| |
6b |
Collaborative (shared) web application, with
or without back-end integration |
Still emerging |
Still emerging |
| 7.0 |
Web services |
Still emerging |
Still emerging |
Tools for Design Win Data Exchange
- Exchanges were one touted as a vehicle for allowing designers
to source parts, but the exchanges that have survived to date
typically do not maintain much more than product number, price,
and a limited set of specifications. For less complex commodities,
this may be sufficient, but this is not sufficient for complex
products. Also, few suppliers list products still in design
phase.
- Product engineers, sales engineers, etc. must have maximum
visibility of new product changes and lifecycle states.
Many solutions offered today as "Design Win" solutions
are really applicable to all design projects where engineers need
to search for suitable components for a product. The solutions
needed include good decision support systems to enable design
engineers and sales resources to make decisions. However,
such tools become critical for those seeking Design Win opportunities
that have a limited time window for achieving the win.
Some mechanisms being employed currently include:
- Integrated B2B Solutions - robust data exchange mechanisms
that allow trading partners to maintain component specification
management data bases.
- Such mechanisms include RosettaNet PIPs™,
OAGI BODs or PDES for the exchange of product and design
data. The matureness and robustness of RosettaNet
PIPs™ and OAGI BODs is still to
be determined, since all the message definitions are relatively
new and not yet widely deployed.
- Web Applications
- Interactive product catalogs that allow design engineers
real-time access to product specifications; may include
the ability to download and manipulate CAD/CAM drawings.
Typically, supplier's maintain this type of application
or use a third-party service provider; some customers
may have web applications containing their design data
that suppliers can query, but this is not a common practice.
- Product Configurators, run by the supplier or their
3rd party service provider as a web front-end application.
A configuration allows a design engineer to enter specifications,
and the web service or web application query's the supplier's
back-end component management system to see if a matching
component exists, or whether is custom configuration is
possible. The supplier may offer the customized
configuration as a potential design win opportunity.
The supplier may also decide that there is additional
sales potential for the custom configuration, and may
decide to make it a standard configuration offering.
- Collaborative Workspaces that allow customers and suppliers
to collaborate on designs. The customer's design engineer
can view and comment on new products the supplier has in development,
and the supplier's design engineer gets maximum opportunity
to make improvements to new products that are to be offered
for Design Win opportunities.
- Ideally, the mechanism should alert the design engineer to design
win opportunities. Although a design win opportunity by
itself is not going to persuade a design engineer to choose a
component, it may be an important factor, all else being equal.
It may be incentive enough to allocate engineering resources to
work with the component supplier on improvements to the component
design.
- The design engineer should be able to do parametric searches
and run statistical analyses on design components.
- In addition for tools that allow a product designer to search
for components, component suppliers and distributors with a list
of parts eligible for Design Win have components in search of
product designs, and would like to have access to information
about customers' upcoming new products to look for Design Win
opportunities.
- One inhibitor is that designers and suppliers are often
reluctant to give each other access to sensitive design data
- Many applications don’t have capability to let engineer
notate what information may be shared with a trading partner
and what may not
- Timing issues are the bane of projects involving two or more
parties who rely on the same data for decision making. If
data in a data base comes from another source, the potential for
data lag, a/k/a information latency, exists. The data sources
there are, the harder it is to keep data synchronized.
- Types of information that may be dynamic include pricing
info, discontinuances, specification changes
|
contact
us 
