ZKW Online – Modern Supplier Management

ZKW Online – Modern Supplier Management-20261104_085418UTC-Meeting Recording
November 4, 2026, 8:54 a.m.
1 hr 15 min 54 sec

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 5:57
All right, then.
Let’s get started.
A wonderful good morning from me. We’ll wait a few more seconds until all the participants are joined in the meeting. The admission process is underway.
Well.
Let’s start at 10:01 a.m. I think we’ve weathered the initial rush by then.
All right, a warm welcome to our webinar on modern supplier management. My name is Fabian Kittel. As a partner at A.M.C., I support companies in the further development of procurement and supply chain management. Today we’ll be discussing how
to create a supplier management system that helps in day-to-day operations. Which suppliers require what level of attention? How do we arrive at transparent decisions, and how do digital processes support collaboration? I’m especially pleased to welcome Mr. Rudolf Neises.
Mr. Neises is Head of Central Purchasing at the Bitburger Brewing Group. Together, we’ve designed and tested a new approach to supplier management for Bitburger and prepared the digital implementation accordingly. And yes, Mr. Neises, a warm welcome to you. I’m very much looking forward to your
contribution to our project and to our discussion.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 8:01
Thank you very much. Good morning.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 8:03
I’m going to share my screen now and have prepared a presentation so that you can follow along with these slides as needed.
Hopefully, you can see them now.
And let’s jump straight to the next slide. Today, we’ll take you through this entire process—from the initial situation, through the most important technical decisions, all the way to implementation in the systems. Through 3
short TeamSurveys, we also want to incorporate your perspective. You’re also welcome to type questions into the chat at any time during the webinar, and we’ll address them at the end.
First off, let’s start with a brief overview from our side. The way we perceive the topic of supplier management in many organizations today is not yet the specific starting point that existed at Bitburger—or currently exists there—but rather
That’s the picture I’d actually summarize when we’re in dialogue with companies. The situation is such that while there is a lot of information available about suppliers, it isn’t really reliable.
The big picture tends to focus on suppliers who are already known or who are currently causing specific problems. And even where evaluations are already taking place and are conducted systematically, it isn’t always clear what consequences ultimately result from them.
That is why we combine modern supplier management with three key principles. First, transparency enables decision-making—meaning that relevant information must be available and up-to-date.
Second, differentiation creates focus. We must understand how well a supplier performs and how important they are to our own performance. And third, consistent action creates value. In other words, an evaluation only becomes truly useful
When it changes priorities, responsibilities, and measures—and our goal isn’t to evaluate as many suppliers as possible in the most labor-intensive way, but rather to manage the right relationships with the right level of intensity—and that was also the guiding principle.
in our discussions and, ultimately, the starting point for our collaboration with Bitburger. But before we dive deeper into that, I’d like to once again welcome Mr. Naises. I’m very pleased about the insights you’re sharing with us today. We’ll keep this discussion going.
And because this is such an exciting topic, we’ve decided that you’ll first provide an overview of the Bitburger Group itself, and then we’ll delve deeper into the details through a question-and-answer session. So, I’d like to hand the floor over to you.
Yes, Bitburger—and ultimately, Bitburger’s procurement department.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 11:11
My pleasure. The Bitburger Brewing Group—I assume you’re familiar with the brands, so Bitburger, I’d imagine. Benediktiner is part of it, along with Günni Pilsener, Köstritzer, Bitburger, and Lichia. We have several locations here. We operate a centralized purchasing system. Perhaps the next slide.
Bitburger as a whole has several locations, which means it typically uses a centralized purchasing system for all of them. Here you can see our distribution across Germany, so to speak, with approximately 1,400 employees and projected revenue for 2025—the company is 100% family-owned, now in its eighth generation.
Procurement for the Bitburger Brewing Group is organized centrally by product category. The main breakdown includes direct materials, raw materials, Coupex, technical procurement, and the procurement of promotional materials.
Of course, “promotional materials” also includes agencies, services, and media. This means the procurement portfolio is managed very broadly, and that’s naturally reflected in supplier management as well. And that brings us to the challenges in this environment—namely, having such a broad procurement portfolio.
Exactly.
About 10% of our sales volume comes from exports, and these are the key suppliers through whom we can distribute and sell our products.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 12:36
Hmm.

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 12:40
We foster heavenly partnerships. For the first time, our Benediktinermarke brand has surpassed 500,000 hectoliters. This means that even in this challenging market, we have growth drivers. That’s a beautiful image, and also…
I find it very close to heaven, and we foster heavenly partnerships.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 12:59
Great. Maybe we can kick things off with some interaction from the participants. Which of you has a particular fondness for one of the Bitburger Brewing Group’s beers? Maybe you could give it a thumbs-up or a heart. That way, we’ll have collected a few reactions right off the bat.
Ah, we’d definitely appreciate it if you’d like to.
I hope it’s enabled. Okay, that should work.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 1:23 p.m.
Very nice.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:25 PM
Yes, very good—I see a few downsides there, and I’d agree with that as well. As residents of the Eifel region, we’re naturally particularly fond of Bitburger Pils here.
Yes, then I’d like to move right on, because ultimately we’ll get into the details again—or rather, I’d like to ask you a specific question, Mr. Neises, regarding the organization of purchasing and how you’ve structured your purchasing operations?
And how structured is it, and what role has supplier management ultimately played at Bitburger Brau so far?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 2:04 p.m.
Hmm.
Perhaps in terms of our structure—we have this three-part organization, so to speak, but we’ve organized ourselves according to strategic product groups. That means procurement is strategically organized by strategic product groups, and it’s important to us that we’re not just an “ordering function,” so to speak.
—but that we’re also, of course, strategic business partners for the line departments. It’s very important for us to be involved in early-stage procurement or corporate decisions, and thus, of course, to ensure—let’s say—supply security, as well as managing risks, driving innovation, and promoting sustainability.
To integrate these elements into the process at an early stage, so to speak, and to continue focusing on digitalization here as well. These are, so to speak, the key themes that we in Purchasing see as part of our role, and we’re driving these topics forward.
We incorporate them into the company’s decision-making processes relatively early on and ensure that we contribute value in terms of supply security and, yes, the best price components, so to speak. As for supplier management—or where we stand to date, so to speak—we have

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 3:12 PM
Hmm.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 3:18 PM
We had—we had a supplier evaluation system, a supplier management system, that was, so to speak, outside of the main system. That means supplier evaluations were conducted in Excel, which were also carried out very individually or even in a decentralized manner, and we want a uniform control model that clearly assigns suppliers—and I just mentioned the
procurement portfolio, which consists of the products we carry—in such a way that we define measures based on criticality, which are uniform across the company, so to speak. This means moving away from a decentralized and, yes, selective supplier management approach toward a.
clear criticality framework and a clear evaluation process, which naturally leads to actions that then—let’s say—based on the product groups, that is, the strategic orientation of the product group, also implement the measures in the supplier management system
Yes, to actually achieve those measures.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 4:14 PM
Yes, thank you very much. Before we dive into the specific requirements of the new approach and explore them in more depth, we’re particularly interested in where you, as participants, stand today. To that end, I’d like to launch the first poll here in Teams with the
specific question. Where do you stand today in supplier management? There are five response options: from “yes, predominantly reactive and case-by-case” to “fundamental processes and criteria are defined,” all the way to “supplier management is additionally supported by AI and is proactive”
Please feel free to take the survey there, and then we’ll look at the results together.
That should take about 15 to 20 seconds. That should be enough, and then we’ll briefly display these results.
There we go.
So, we have.
40% of the responses indicate that suppliers are already being systematically evaluated and classified.
The picture changes slightly with 50 responses submitted: 12% are predominantly reactive and case-by-case, while 30% have defined fundamental processes and criteria.
The topic of AI support is actually not represented in any of the responses here yet—which is certainly interesting, because during the webinar we’ll also be incorporating, let’s say, an AI module to demonstrate how the Bitburger Power Group applies this to its supplier base. Thank you very, very much for that.
I’ll now jump back a bit to provide some final context.
The reason supplier management is so crucial from our perspective—you can see the external influences at the top of the slide: geopolitical developments, supply chain disruptions, technological changes, and regulations.
Cybersecurity risks—all of these are issues, and in some cases crises, that, as we’ve sort of come to say since COVID, are actually crises that would normally unfold over decades, but which now seem to occur on a monthly or even weekly basis, and thus require a certain dynamic capacity to act.
Yes, they do. And just as important is the interaction of these individual external effects on the supplier relationship, which is primarily determined by
what happens on the supplier side (on the left), but also on our own demand side (on the right). And here, it’s about continuously and actively influencing this interaction through management and further developing it in line with our own business model.
From our perspective, this is the goal that should ultimately be achieved through supplier management. And if, as is still too often the case today, we rely on one-time data entry as part of supplier onboarding, etc.
use that as a tool—conducting supplier evaluations on an ad hoc basis when necessary, but above all collaborating with suppliers in a more reactive manner through day-to-day business at the transactional level—then these standardized process mechanisms often
fall short in the face of these dynamic external influences and changing conditions. That’s why the focus must shift—so to speak—to the right side: toward strategic steering and development, meaning the continuous flow of information.
Not only to capture it, but also to evaluate it in terms of significance, and then appropriately derive classifications and segments from it that help us prioritize specific topics, individual suppliers, and specific measures.
Ultimately, we must also very, very consistently translate these measures into a development strategy and then vary the level of support provided to suppliers based on their significance and criticality.
And that was also the guiding principle with which we began our collaboration with Bitburger and A. M. C.—how we ultimately create the framework to address precisely this. Mr. Neses, before we dive into that and present it in more detail, how are developments in the beer market changing
the requirements for procurement and its suppliers?

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 9:19 PM
Well, of course, the beer market has been very strong in recent years and has changed quite dramatically. Historically speaking, I’d say it’s changed. That means the pressure—cost pressure, efficiency pressure—in the brewing industry is, of course, immense. You can see it, and you hear about it in various newspaper reports.
Of course, changes are also taking place in the supply chain, so to speak—malting plants and excess capacity are being shut down. This means that it’s not just on our end, so to speak, that the demand situation is changing; we’re naturally seeing these changes reflected in the supply chain as well.
And so, from my perspective, these are changes driven by historical trends—specifically, national and international developments—that we naturally have to manage. This means it’s not just about prices and quality; we also have to assess which suppliers are reliable.
How resilient are you? Well, that means we face crises—like the “homos crisis,” so to speak, or the “wars,” if you will—that we’ve experienced in the past regarding energy price trends, which we’re still seeing today. We must manage these as risks accordingly and evaluate them economically—or, so to speak, from a business perspective—in terms of risk management.
But of course, this also creates economic competition. That means we’re under pressure—we have the framework conditions we’re facing, which we’re actively addressing—and we have to look ahead. So, I think this is in contrast to the past, when things were more predictable, but since 2022…
These volatilities are changing drastically, and so, of course, there are risks in the supply chain that we should be aware of—and are aware of—but we also need to develop measures within a system to address them, which then become part of an ongoing process. That’s where we stand, and that’s how I see it.
Yes, in the industry—in every industry—a great deal has changed in the past, and we have to manage that as well.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 11:03 p.m.
Hmm. And now, with an eye toward our own demand side and our presence as a company and brand, we’ve naturally been focusing more and more on being much more visible—that is, through sponsorships, the European Championship, and so on.
What were the resulting challenges that you ultimately had to specifically address or overcome in collaboration with your suppliers?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 11:31 PM
Yes, there’s sponsorship, for example, if you want to take advantage of sponsorship initiatives—essentially a digital extension of individual campaigns, which are, of course, resource-intensive. For instance, let me use the Elversberg can as an example, where we used a new book, so to speak.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 11:46 p.m.
I actually have them here.

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 11:47 PM
Is that OK with you? Good, very, very nice. For example, these are the kinds of topics—of course—where we can provide support through innovation, through our suppliers, and also through media or sales channels, simply to take advantage of this sponsorship and this commitment.
In the area of the European Championship as well—or as a partner in soccer—we’ve naturally run campaigns that we develop further with our suppliers beforehand. Not just the QR-code cork campaign, which we implement using QR codes, so to speak, and of course do so early on.
We’re entering into these discussions, but these are, of course, also measures where we can provide support as requested—though, naturally, the products themselves are changing and becoming more customized, so we need to have answers ready and incorporate them into the development process early on.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 24:34
Hmm, and that brings us to the question of what innovation potential ultimately exists on the supplier side, what opportunities there are to keep a constant eye on that, and then to jointly develop solutions for our own needs as well.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 24:39
Yes.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 24:49
I printed the design—featuring bottle caps and QR codes—on the inside of the bottle caps. That was actually the first time anyone had ever done that, right?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 25:00
Well, there have always been campaigns. But digitization on this scale was a first back then.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 25:02
Yes.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 25:07
I'd say it's not new. It's not a new technology, but on this scale—I think in Germany, yes, this is the first time it's been implemented, so to speak.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 25:12
Yep.
Hmm, and with that in mind, what was ultimately most important to you when redesigning your supplier management system?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 25:25
I think it’s particularly important to note that resources in purchasing are scarce everywhere. Of course, people always look at the F. de. s, but that shouldn’t result in any extra work. In other words, it should be pragmatic; it shouldn’t involve any extra effort, it shouldn’t involve bureaucratization just for the sake of filing away data, but rather it should truly
cover everything from evaluation to classification—and then also focus, so to speak, on which product groups or which suppliers, and in which product groups we should implement which measures, which are of course then addressed in a targeted manner—rather than conducting a broad
supplier evaluation that is subsequently used merely as a supplier evaluation—as an archive, so to speak—but rather one that truly feeds into the measures and developments. We have very high standards, which of course also change. This means that the demand side naturally changes, but so does the procurement function itself.
And, of course, the requirements for suppliers are also changing—whether it’s PPWR, EUDR, or LKSG issues, which have, admittedly, been scaled back. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to assess where we stand in our supply chain regarding these issues, as well as overall sustainability. And that’s why.
In my view, this is what’s now bringing about changes in procurement—including due to regulatory changes—and managing this within an organization of a certain size is the challenge here.
Yes, we have to manage this without creating additional work.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 26:55
So the guidelines and basis were then defined in accordance with this requirement. We’re introducing additional forms and more discussions for everyone. The main point was that we ultimately couldn’t—or shouldn’t—create any additional workload, but rather…
Ultimately, the goal was to create a better basis for decision-making and then to use the available time in a targeted and resource-efficient manner. And yes, this raised the question of what this process would look like in terms of its
consistency in the end. We had identified—let’s say—five sub-process steps in the design phase, which can also be seen here on the slide. From prequalification through qualification and evaluation to classification and development.
We’ll delve a bit deeper into this overall framework shortly. Ultimately, what matters most is the connection between the individual steps—how information from one step is transferred to the next and made usable—and which insights from the.
collaboration must also flow back at the end so that we maintain continuity in further development. How did we proceed in our joint project to restructure supplier management? Would you like us to?
Let’s review that and summarize it again.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 28:20
Well, personally, it was important to me, of course, that we first develop a concept. This concept was to be developed in such a way that we identify the key points and turn this concept phase into a prototype phase. In other words, the initial scope of the project consisted solely of the concept phase for this.
Supplier Management Model. Then we had a pilot phase where we actually ran about 100 suppliers through the process—without a system, so to speak—to validate the results and the measures that subsequently emerged from various strategies.
to present them, test them, and now we’re in the implementation phase, where we are right now, so to speak. In other words, that was our general approach—and what was important to me here was not to be guided by any existing systems at first, but rather to first develop a concept that suits us.
Which can then be implemented later on.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 29:17
Were there any surprises during the development of the concept that you hadn't initially anticipated or expected?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 29:25
Yes, I wouldn't say it's because of a surprise, I mean, given the nature of our procurement portfolio—which is very, very broadly diversified—the critical factor, or rather the evaluation criteria that you establish at the outset, so to speak, is that you naturally find yourself
plunged into a level of complexity relatively quickly, which, of course, leads to conflicts of interest later on due to the effort involved. That’s why—and this is, of course, due to our framework conditions, which have influenced me quite strongly, so to speak—we still have to
ensure that we define meaningful implementation strategies and criteria here, and of course determine where and what makes sense with which suppliers, and what evaluation process to follow. And that’s why we end up with this two-dimensional approach regarding the criteria.
because we have very different requirements across product groups. That means we range from NIS 2—for example, IT security—all the way to FSSC-relevant standards. I mean, these are the issues we’re naturally familiar with in the FSCV sector and in the beer industry, where materials that come into contact with products—product components—have different requirements than, say, an IT-related issue.
Or, of course, product components—such as promotional materials or agencies—which are, naturally, completely different. And while this complex procurement issue didn’t exactly surprise me, it was clear that complexity would inevitably arise.
You then have to address these issues and, of course, constantly ask yourself: What will the criteria be? What measures will be taken? What leads to an impact or a change?

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 31:03
And standardizing this process—as outlined above—doesn’t mean asking all suppliers the exact same questions, but rather guaranteeing and establishing a reliable workflow that can be tailored to each individual situation.
And yes, the point between evaluation and action is particularly crucial. And that’s exactly why we’d like to ask about your experiences once again and launch the second survey.
I’ll click “Start” here. You should be able to see it now. Thank you. What happens at your company after the supplier evaluation? You have the option to select multiple answers—that is, results are primarily documented and reported.
Results are discussed with the supplier. Specific improvement measures are agreed upon. The level of support is adjusted accordingly. Strategic importance and the supplier’s classification are taken into account. Consequences are systematically tracked.
And finally, we’re not currently conducting a systematic supplier evaluation. But just to clarify, the survey results and individual responses are anonymized accordingly. So feel free to
take advantage of this, even if you don’t currently have anything set up here.
So, show me the results.
They’ll be displayed for you as well. Right, so you can see them, right?
Yes, that’s correct.
Evenly distributed. Basically, most—the vast majority—of participants already have a systematic supplier evaluation process in place. It was about 2% or 3% who simply said, “No, we don’t have that yet.”
For most, the results are discussed with the supplier, and specific improvement measures are agreed upon accordingly; however, the—let’s say—consistency in systematic follow-up and, ultimately, adjustment of the level of support
actually occurs only sporadically in 12% or 10% of cases and, I believe, is not yet fully established among all participants. And that, I believe, is also the key element that we saw at Bitburger. In other words, we have a project,
where two areas of inquiry are deliberately separated from one another within the framework of the evaluation to ultimately create the prerequisite for this consistent derivation of supplier classification.
As well as deriving from this the nature of future collaboration and the level of support required—and thus distinguishing between how well the supplier performs and how critical they are to our own performance?
I’ll now jump back to a slide for this. I’ll share my screen again.
Right.
Yeah.
First of all.
The process shown here in Gensheimer—that is, we ultimately start the supplier evaluation on the left. A kind of pre-selection already takes place here, so that, of course, this can’t continue indefinitely through such manual questions.
Starting at a certain—let’s say—revenue and relevance threshold, meaning which product categories are supplied—perhaps you could also provide some context on that. What were the initial criteria, and could you also answer that question at the same time?
Because we were faced with the situation where we essentially couldn’t derive all the insights and figures from the following systems in a quantifiable way, what kind of question framework did we ultimately decide on, and how did we structure it?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 35:34
Maybe one more thing—this isn’t the scoring system used exclusively by Bitburger, so to speak; it’s just an example here, so to speak—but in principle, exactly in principle, the system can be illustrated. I mean, not all the numbers are automatically in the system—where KPIs are available, they’re naturally pulled out of the system automatically.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 35:39
Absolute.

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 35:51
But, of course, stakeholders are also surveyed—so to speak—on performance-related issues or via questionnaires with guiding questions, and then, naturally, based on the frequency of the surveys and the responses, this supplier feedback and these answers are evaluated and incorporated into the scoring. That means,
We have, of course, the suppliers who are surveyed, depending on the business and the critical factors—such as cold chain requirements—that apply to the product group in question. There are, of course, differences. For example, I just mentioned raw materials in the context of malting plants, or similar areas.
Areas such as product groups, advertising materials, and sales services—which, of course, aren’t as critical in terms of criticality—don’t get me wrong, they aren’t as critical regarding potential failure points—but depending on the supplier’s market position—whether there are many, few, or customized products—
We take that into account, so to speak, and we’ve developed guidelines to help us see the full picture later on. It doesn’t always mean that a supplier who performs very well operationally—but perhaps offers customized products—is, so to speak, operationally.
Yes, let’s say they have a very strong performance portfolio, but can still be strategically critical. And of course, it’s important to engage in dialogue and ask—whether it’s about, say, key suppliers, or those I believe are
fundamental and important—how do we continue to develop? How do we mitigate the risk? What other options do we have? But of course, I can also imagine helping to organize supplier days, so to speak, if we can clearly
specify the topics at the product group level and define where we want to go with the suppliers. So that means—as a colleague already asked in the chat—how can we manage this going forward? In other words, the key outcome of this assessment will be defining the measures and then
Of course, we can look at which regular meetings or frameworks we can use to help develop these “supplier days” or “boot camps,” so to speak. But that’s a topic for later—how do I implement things? First, I need to have the classification in place and determine: given that these are the suppliers, what are the key issues when I’m looking at sustainability, so to speak.
When I look at Scope 3—and of course, if I factor that in—which topics do we want to address, how, and with which product groups? So, I think the first step here is to assess the criticality and apply evaluation measures to the suppliers who are material and also pose a risk to us.
To evaluate them and, of course, take the necessary measures afterward.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 38:27
Mhm. Ja, und das zeigt jetzt diese 3 Schritte hier, der Fragen bewerten, Scores gewichten und im Portfolio einordnen, diesen Gesamtzusammenhang, also was dann mit der Bewertung auch passiert. Uns war wichtig, dass es einigermaßen praktikabel, verständlich, noch nicht zu technisch wird, also dort, wo wir
Kennzahlen entsprechend aus dem System ableiten können, werden diese herangezogen. Aber vor allem dann auch nicht nur in den Einkauf, sondern auch die Fachbereiche zu involvieren und auf eine einfache Art und Weise letztendlich dann einzelne Themen und das ist hier auf der linken Seite mal dargestellt zum Thema Lieferantenbewertung der Liefertreue. Da gibt es eine Frage zu
Liefertermintreue nicht unbedingt, was ist jetzt eben die eine bestimmte Kennzahl, wie ist sie ausgeprägt, sondern vor allem, wie hält der Lieferant die vereinbarten Termine ein und das abzufragen auf einer 5 Sterne Skala, wobei dann jeder Stern eben auch ’ne Bedeutung in der Definition hat. Und das ist entsprechend
Systemen und hinterher in diesem Standardprozess umgesetzt. Und das ist jetzt nur ein Beispiel. In Summe fließen dann entsprechend der beiden Dimensionen Leistung und Kritikalität jeweils einzelne Detailfragen ein, die dann in dem Beispiel, was wir jetzt hier aufgeführt haben, gleichgewichtet.
zu einer Positionierung gemäß der beiden Skalen in einem Portfolio überführt werden. Und dieses Portfolio ist dann unsere Grundlage, wie wir mit den Lieferanten gemäß des
Ergebnisses am Ende für die weitere Zusammenarbeit und die Beziehung umgehen wollen. Das heißt, hier bei dem Beispiel Lieferant C. haben wir entsprechend dann diese Bewertungen mit der bedeutenden Klasse.
geclustert und unterscheiden in Summe 5 verschiedene Lieferantenklassen. Der Preferred Supplier sind dann die Lieferanten, die entsprechend sehr, sehr gute Leistungen haben, wo aber keine große Kritikalität besteht, sprich keine große Abhängigkeit. Wir haben kein großes Risiko, was davon.
oder damit einhergeht bei Business Critical Suppliern, die können sehr, sehr gut Performance leisten, aber sie sind eben wichtig und kritisch für die eigene Geschäftstätigkeit der Bitburger Braugruppe und fallen deswegen hier in dieses Segment rein. Basislieferanten sind dann die mit ja einer mittleren Performance Bewertung.
und keiner besonderen Kritikalität. Backup-Supplier, die die eben nicht besonders wirklich auffällig sind, was gute Leistungen anbelangt, und die Risikolieferanten, diejenigen, die einfach ’ne hohe Kritikalität aufweisen, und in der Bewertung der Leistung Performance hinsichtlich Liefertreue, Preise, Qualität,
Nachhaltigkeit und auch Innovationspotenzial leider in diesem unteren Bereichen fallen und deswegen auch eine ganz andere und besondere ja Bedeutung dann haben, wie wir mit diesen umgehen.
Und diese Konsequenzen des Umgangs und der Ableitung, auch das ist systematisiert worden. Und hier, Sie sagten es gerade schon, mit einzelnen, ich sag mal, Maßnahmen, die man in der Kommunikation und Zusammenarbeit entsprechend erwägt, kann man letztendlich diese einzelnen.
ich mal, Lieferantenklassen übersetzen in Normstrategien. Und das ist letztendlich dann auch ’ne Indikation für diese Betreuungslogik. dass wir beispielsweise mit Backup-Supplier natürlich irgendwie keine Regeltermine aufsetzen und dann nur
Bei Bedarf transaktionsbezogenen den Kontakt haben und formal eben automatisierter Jahrescheck auf Basis von ja Standardinformationen entsprechend erfolgt aber auch hier kein Entwicklungsplan aufgeführt werden bei den.
Business Critical Supplier beispielsweise, wo wir ’ne Regelmäßigkeit haben, die was eben auch abzusichern gilt, was die Performance anbelangt, die aber unterscheiden, dass wir natürlich jährlich sehr, sehr umfänglich bewerten. Intern monatlich mit bestehenden Planungsreviews und so weiter hinsichtlich der Versorgung, Risiken und auch Maßnahmen in den Austausch gehen.
Mindestens quartalsweise mit diesem Business Critical Supplier entsprechende Bedarfe besprechen. Wie entwickelt sich die Nachfrageseite? Wie sieht die Kapazitätsseite auch für Lieferanten aus? Ist Versorgung eben sichergestellt und dann auch ein Management-Dialog?
Mit Geschäftsführung und den strategischen Einheiten zu führen und letztendlich auch hier in die Weiterentwicklung dieser Lieferantenbeziehung zu investieren und entsprechend je nach Lieferantenklasse haben wir ja unterschiedliche Herangehens weisen.
Also nicht jeder Lieferant bekommt mehr Aufmerksamkeit durch die Bewertung, sondern eben die Aufmerksamkeit wird bewusster verteilt und aus dieser Betreuungslogik müssen dann konkrete und zum Lieferanten passende Entwicklungsmaßnahmen entstehen, die ebenfalls
Ich sag mal standardisiert, durchaus als ja, ich sag mal Checkliste et cetera ablaufen können und dazu hatten wir dann auch als Ergebnis der der ersten Übung mal den Abgleich gemacht. Das ist jetzt hier auf einer anonymisierten Folie noch mal dargestellt.
sprich, wie dann am Ende das Ergebnis der Bewertung für die einzigen Lieferanten zu welcher Klassifizierung führte, was für Standardmaßnahmen wir eigentlich sehen und dann auch mal den Abgleich macht, ja, was haben wir denn dann auch seitens Bitburger mit den bestehenden Prozessen eben schon für diese Lieferanten gemacht und wo war dann konkreter Handlungsbedarf, der sich daraus
Eben logisch hergeleitet, abgeleitet hat. Genau das wollen Sie uns dazu noch mal einen kurzen Einblick geben.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 43:54
Yes, I wanted to—I wanted to address one question right away: to what extent—that is, to what extent—are we centrally organized in purchasing? Of course, we’ve analyzed the individual stakeholders for each product group to determine who is included in this supplier evaluation. That means we don’t just have a central
perspective from a procurement standpoint, but we also involve the relevant stakeholders who share responsibility with the suppliers—whether it’s the quality department, logistics, logistical processes, or scheduling issues. So it’s very important to take this perspective into account as well, so that we can then.
Accordingly, the measures and these standardization strategies are, of course, always part of the discussion with those responsible for procurement. But OK, let’s take the example here of framework agreements with a long-term horizon. I think it’s important for everyone in purchasing to know that…
When does it make sense to enter into a framework agreement with a long-term horizon? Nevertheless, I think this standard strategy is always an important consideration and a topic for discussion in product group strategy: Which suppliers are we working with?
With which products, and under what contractual arrangements—so to speak. And, of course, quality support is important; when looking at raw materials, the support effort is naturally different—whether from a purchasing perspective or from the quality department’s perspective.
with the exchange. These are different product groups that are managed very broadly or diversified, and we manage them from a purchasing perspective using these possible standard strategies—which are just examples, right?—so they’re presented only as examples. But of course, the quality department or the specialist department is always in communication.
This includes communication with suppliers, and we can manage this more effectively if we say, “OK, we have this risk—let’s say, not just two issues—IT security issues can be assessed differently during supplier audits, which we then include as well, and this has already been incorporated.
In our audits, so to speak, we also evaluate corresponding questions regarding these suppliers during the audit. But this is, so to speak, a standard strategy—simply as a discussion point and as an important implementation measure within the product group and among the suppliers we’re dealing with.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 46:05
Thank you very much. Yes, and with that we’ve ultimately illustrated the connection between the assessment and the actions taken as part of standard strategies, as well as individual measures—which, of course, arise very specifically, especially in the case of isolated deviations in individual assessment questions, where we identify anomalies.
we can very easily derive specific actions. This is also standardized—essentially part of the standard procedure, so to speak—which we systematically apply to all suppliers. But of course, we also face the reality that new information is constantly being taken into account, as well as events that occur and ultimately have an impact on day-to-day business.
which then affects operations accordingly. And the next question—which is why we’d like to include it again in this survey—relates precisely to that. How do we learn about relevant changes, especially between two evaluations, for example? And here, we’d
like to simply gauge the general sentiment and opinions via the multiple-choice options. I’ll start the survey. Exactly. So, how early do you identify risks in your supplier base? Does this rely exclusively on information provided by the suppliers?
Do you already use AI to support this process?
Is there automated monitoring of external events, or is the response primarily reactive once a problem has already occurred?
I’ll give you 15 seconds to answer.
Then let’s take a look at the
results.
Thank you for that. So, about a quarter—25%—say this is primarily done through information from the supplier, while 27% say it’s through procurement, line management, and personal contacts. In other words—and this is important again—
From our perspective, this systematization must not sideline personal contact with suppliers, but it should be very, very focused and directed toward those suppliers where the relationship is, of course, particularly important.
We have—let’s say—AI support in only 2% of the participants here.
And only 8% use automated monitoring of external results and events. This is certainly supplemented by 15% who use external risk and information services. In fact, I’d say this potential—
to utilize the information available on the World Wide Web, etc.—has not yet been fully tapped. So, to summarize the results of this survey—and this was, I’d say, a key factor for us in the project—
that we also view this digital representation as a key building block—on the one hand, to be able to offer a standardized process that’s as user-friendly as possible, one that follows its guidelines
and is also tailored to specific product groups, but that encompasses this standard process from qualification all the way through to classification and development. And that it also allows for a significant addition—namely,
yes, enabling buyers to access existing information that may not be directly available in their own systems. Mr. Neises, what was the topic? Let me ask: what were the main requirements for the digital solution at
Bitburger, and how did we ultimately move from the process to the digital solution?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 50:03
Yes, well, it was also important to us not to create a “silo” solution, so to speak, but to have an integrated system. We have—of course—SAP as our ERP system in the background, and we have Cooper as our e-procurement system, so to speak, integrated upstream of the SAP systems.
and we naturally want to centralize important information here—yes, exactly—thank you very much for this, for this diagram. Ultimately, what you’re seeing here is an illustrative example: as I said, SAP in the background; our e-procurement solution is called Cooper; and when it comes to decision-making, we naturally want to use SAC to consolidate all the—yes,
information—meaning all information will subsequently be available in a single system, suitable for management use, allowing us to see where the individual—yes, critiques, yes, the ratings are, how our supplier system is structured, and we’ll see the results later in this dashboard.
In addition to the evaluation, we’ve also incorporated an external tool to simply include a risk screening, so to speak. It’s a startup that uses AI to analyze all the content—
—and then monitor the key suppliers we’ve identified accordingly. And that’s now a risk factor. If there’s an insolvency—or even a potential insolvency— In other words, the system detects
various forms of volatility or changes in the market, as well as, of course, notifications from a wide variety of sources—whether from the web, Grid Safe, or other sources—to provide information that could be relevant to us early on to the purchasing team in the product groups or to the product group managers.
One consequence of this—and we’ve tested this, for example, with a logistics company where we have intercompany transactions, so to speak—is that when a logistics company filed for bankruptcy, we received this information. Using this tool, we would have received it 4 to 6 weeks earlier.
Would have received it. So that means you can also see that some information is available more quickly, so to speak. And of course, the focus now—during this implementation phase—is on determining what relevant information is currently available and what relevant information we will then provide to the buyers, so to speak.
Delivered. It’s not just about—well, it’s essential, and I think this is crucial to emphasize—that the information delivered should actually be relevant. And now, during this pilot phase—as we’re in the process of digitization and implementation—we also need to reassess which information is shared with which suppliers, based on the criteria we just discussed.
operate using this system based on risk management, and it’s important for me—or for us as a group—to be able to say, “OK, this is our supplier base with the relevant risks; this is our supplier structure,” which we can uniformly present in a single system
and can also monitor and manage.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 52:54
Ja, und ich glaube, von dem von dem Vorgehen würde ich es gerne noch mal zusammenfassen. Letztendlich hatten wir ja den auch zu Beginn gezeigten Zielprozess mit der Ausgestaltung, welche Fragen gestellt werden, welche Lieferantenklassifizierung und so weiter wir haben. Daraus haben wir letztendlich die funktionalen und technischen Anforderungen auch noch mal.
geleitet und diese formuliert und definiert und sind dann auf die Fachbereiche, den Implementierungspartner, den Systemanbieter entsprechend zugegangen und haben dann um die Bewertung gebeten, wie das letztendlich in deren Systemen und im Zusammenspiel.
dieses Ende-zu-Ende-Prozesses auch im Datenobjektfluss zwischen E. A. P. Eprocurement Suite, der der der K. I. Lösung, aber auch zur Visualisierung der Daten in dem in dem B. I. Dashboard entsprechend, wie das alles als Informationsfluss und Kette zusammenfließen muss, was für Integrationsanforderungen wir haben,
Damit eben der Einkäufer am Ende einen dieser 360 Grad Blick aus den Ergebnissen dieses Prozesses bekommt, um zu jedem Zeitpunkt auch in der Lage zu sein, Informationen entsprechend rauszuziehen. Und da ist das BI, ich sag mal so als Cockpit am Ende.
entscheidend die Sub Analytics Cloud, die dort verwendet wird, mit ’nem kompetenten Team auf Seiten Bitburger dann eben auch umgesetzt. Da haben wir so ’n so ’n ja ’n Entwurf erstellt, der letztendlich alle.
Informationen, die wir entlang des Prozesses sammeln, darstellt und das ist die Grundlage dafür, dass eben jetzt in dem BI auch nachzubauen und letztendlich den Prozess aber auch so stringent abzubilden, dass er nicht von der, ich sag mal, Kompetenz der handelnden Personen unbedingt abhängt.
sondern auch dann mit der Eprocurement Suite, da sagen gerade, dass sie da Cooper einwenden mit dem Cooper Supplier Portal, die Möglichkeit geben, den Lieferanten direkt eben auch auf die Funktionalitäten zuzugreifen. Das heißt, es ist kein Excel-Weitwurf, Versenden von von Zertifikaten via E-Mail, sondern tatsächlich.
Über den Zugang des Portals die Möglichkeit, die Daten auf Anfrage und auch proaktiv, falls sich was verändert, bereitzustellen. Das umfasst eben auch Zertifikate, die dann per Schnittstelle in das Dokumentmanagementsystem auch übertragen werden.
und letztendlich je nach Status auch der Qualifizierung dieser Lieferanten Status zu ’ner Aktivierung oder auch Deaktivierung eben im ERP führt und die ganzen Themen rund um Bewertung, Klassifikation dann auch die Umsetzung im System gefunden haben.
Und dann als Ergebnis MBI immer wieder auch ersichtlich sind. Und das schließt am Ende dann auch die Maßnahmen ein, die ergriffen werden, wobei auch das bislang von den Funktionen her dann noch der Offline-Bereich ist, wo dann die Einkäufer eben schnell in die Direktbeziehung auch gehen müssen, in den Austausch auch mit den Internen.
Bedarfsträgern, die ja mit den Lieferanten ja auch zusammenarbeiten, die ihre Bedarfe entsprechend abwickeln müssen und dürfen.
Damit oder vielleicht ein kurzer Punkt noch auch zu dieser K. I. Lösung, weil ich das ganz entscheidend finde. Die Informationen sind alle da und wir haben jetzt hier mit dem ja K. I. Startup sehr sehr eng zusammengearbeitet, relevante Datenpunkte, die
Bitburger entscheidend sind zu identifizieren. Das sind weit über 100000000 Datenpunkte, die abgegriffen werden in über 50 unterschiedlichen Kategorien, sei es Cybersecurity, regionale Engpässe, finanzielle Risiken et cetera.
und wir haben einzelne Scores aus diesen Risikokennzahlen auf einer ja Skala entsprechend auch per per Schnittstelle ziehen wir uns die rein und die Informationen werden dann auch für diese Bewertung und Einordnung in die Kritikalität dann beispielsweise mitberücksichtigt.
Und das ist das eine, was in dem Standardprozess läuft. Und wie Herr Nasis gerade schon sagte, diese Einzelevents und Ereignisse sind dann der, ich sag mal, Trigger, um ad hoc auch zu handeln, wenn da entsprechende Erfordernis ist.
Einzugehen, dass man dann entsprechend auch die Maßnahmen ableiten kann. Und dazu möchte ich einmal ganz kurz noch als Illustration hinzeigen.
Das ist auf die Schnelle so beispielhaft konzipiert, dieses Cockpit mit einer Übersicht zu allen relevanten Daten der Lieferanten. Das sind alles Dummy-Daten, die wir mal als Idee konzipiert haben, die die Diskussionsgrundlage dargestellt hat.
Jetzt haben wir dann hier in dem Bereich Risiko, dann entlang dieser Dummy-Lieferanten bestimmte Ereignisse, wie jetzt ein eröffnetes Insolvenzverfahren beispielsweise. Und wenn wir dann auf den Lieferanten gehen und uns auch anschauen, wie sich das Potenzial entwickelt hat, wie wir.
Die einzelnen Ergebnisse aus den Bewertungen ableiten konnten, dass wir dann auch im Bereich.
der Bewertung, Klassifikation, die einzelnen Themen und die Darstellungen hatten und konkret jetzt geh ich da einfach noch mal zurück auf das Thema Risiko bei dem einen Lieferanten hier.
Bei dem Ereignis ne bei dem Incident, dass hier eben das Insolvenzverfahren eröffnet wurde und dann auch ne konkrete Maßnahme als Empfehlung abgeleitet wird, ja, dass gewisse Themen eben abgesichert werden müssen. Der Austausch mit dem Insolvenzverwalter zu klären ist, was Zahlungsbedingungen et cetera anbelangt.
Oder eben eine zweite Bezugsquelle zu identifizieren, so dass das mal als Idee zu vermitteln.
Ja, und damit würde ich auch schon zum Fazit kommen, Herr Neises, wo stehen wir aktuell in der Umsetzung, was sind die wichtigsten Erkenntnisse, die wir bislang ableiten konnten und
Ja, was wollen Sie auch den anderen teilnehmenden Einkaufsleitern aus unserem gemeinsamen Projekt mitgeben, wenn ich Sie darum noch bitten dürfte?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 59:00
Yes, first of all, of course, there’s adherence to the budget and the timeline. That’s obviously crucial for me, and of course for this implementation as well. From my perspective, the roadmap is also crucial in determining how we can operationalize this going forward and implement it strategically, so to speak. That means—
—of course, we’ll have the system in place, but we’ll also need to take the time, so to speak, to integrate this topic into the organization and operationalize it, so that we can then implement the necessary measures. I think that will be the key task going forward, along with applying these insights.
Similarly, with regard to product group strategies and supplier management. I just saw the Kreilik matrix, so to speak. That’s naturally also part of the strategic evaluation within the product group. That means it’s incorporated into what is essentially supplier management here, where we’ll later
be able to operationalize these topics—including digitally—and support decision-making processes, thereby implementing measures in a differentiated manner. For me, it’s important—at least for the immediate future, let’s say from the end of this year through the beginning or middle of next year—to wrap up these topics, so to speak.
And then to move on to implementation accordingly. What I also think is important is that everyone is talking about AI. When we look at this supplier process or supplier management process, there are, of course, sub-areas right now. A small part, so to speak, involving risk screening using AI is handled via AI.
Yes, it’s supported by AI, but I believe it’s important to define this standardized process so that later we can perhaps add other agents or tools and say, “OK, this is our target process.” And then, of course, once you’ve implemented it consistently, you might also be able to gain other benefits—such as increased efficiency—from it. But that means I have to—or rather, we should—
get the processes right first before AI is always part of the discussion, so to speak. I believe this is essential, and from our perspective and experience, master data—how the processes work and how they’re mapped in the system—is always an issue and, I think, a sticking point in many companies, especially when you have, of course, many
strong procurement portfolios and many stakeholders, you naturally have to define the standard—once and for all—and then, of course, you can move on to further optimization. In other words, this is a key insight for me: we also define the supplier process within a system.
Digitization is the first step, and then comes the next stage—further development, so to speak. In my view, the goal is not only to make procurement even more efficient but also to have a basis for decision-making or tools to help make the right decision.
In the long term, yes, to generate that.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:01:43
I couldn’t have summarized it better myself. Thank you very much. I’ve laid this out here again, and we’ll be happy to make the document available to you afterward as well. In other words, a consistent process—that’s the first key milestone we need to achieve in order to ultimately implement all of these logical frameworks.
Designing everything to fit together seamlessly—from qualification through development—and then not only identifying relevant data but also having it readily available in its current state, since that data is crucial for ultimately
being able to support and make the decision. This is also a very essential foundation when we’re talking about overall potential, individual segments, and subprocesses—and then supporting them further through agent-based solutions. Third, we had a differentiated assessment—that is, performance criticality.
We documented this because it is precisely what enables this portfolio structure in the first place. Fourth, binding consequences. So, on the one hand, it’s important to be clear about what the consequences actually are.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 1:02:43
If you'd like to show another slide, Mr. Kittel, we don't see one.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:02:47
RTG, it's good that you say that, but it's actually exactly that—exactly what you're saying. Wait a minute, I’ve lost my screen here.
Thanks, nice. Let’s try that again.
So, and then binding consequences. That’s where I was just now—meaning, in accordance with responsibilities, taking action and then, as you also said, digital and AI-supported transparency. So, ultimately, value is created through the systematic processing of information, derived from
prioritization and then standardized measures. And with that, I’d like to move on to the final survey—that is, before we wrap up, we’ll also address any open questions, which you’re welcome to post in the chat.
Where do you currently stand, or where do you currently see the greatest need for improvement in your supplier management, especially in light of what we’ve learned in today’s session? I’m checking right now.
I don’t see the survey anymore—or is it already running?
I don’t think I have a technical issue, but that doesn’t mean we don’t.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 1:04:06
The question isn't working. Here it comes.

Bayer, Jasmin | amc Group 1:04:07
Started.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:04:08
Oh, right, thanks—thanks, Jasmin, for your support in the background. Yes, the wrong window, too. Exactly. So multiple selections are possible there as well. And I’d also appreciate your feedback on that if you’d like to share it with us.

Bayer, Jasmin | amc Group 1:04:10
You're welcome.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:04:22
And
We’re also happy to share
the results on an ongoing basis.
So. Data and transparency, according to the top runner, followed by risk management, digitalization, AI—yes, certainly individual topics. Well, I think there are many, many points of reference that you can best take away with you today. At the same time, there are many solutions
out there. I believe we just need to get started in a systematic, disciplined, and effective way. And yes, of course, that’s not necessarily easy. Let me put it this way: in our day-to-day business, given the various issues we face, we need to build structures that are fit for the future.
That’s why I’d like to reiterate our offer here: we see supplier management as a key building block for the future of procurement, but you’re not the only one. And if you’d like—because I’d love to have you participate in the Procurement Agenda 2027
—this is a survey and a benchmark that we’ll use in our studies, in a study format, where you can assess your—let’s say—performance and relevant issues to determine your current status, derive concrete areas for action, and ultimately receive
receive your results in a custom-generated dashboard, and in my view, you’ll be able to systematically derive and document the topics for 2027 and beyond very, very effectively—simply by answering the questions we’ve included there.
Based on the answer options, it clearly shows where you stand in detail and where the topic of supplier management should be prioritized. And with that, I’d like to extend my very, very sincere thanks to you, Mr. Neises.
and also to all of you for participating. And yes, I wish you all the best of success, look forward to our continued collaboration and the next steps in the project, and am happy to open the floor for questions. Yes, exactly.

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 1:06:43
I might have one more—actually, two.
Yes, I have one more “thank you,” so to speak, for everyone here. I think we’ve already answered a lot of questions. But if there’s still a strategic decision—especially tonight as the workday winds down—that’s still up in the air, I have a solution for that. That is, whether you choose a Bitburger (non-alcoholic or alcoholic) or a Benediktiner, you certainly can’t go wrong here.
That’s why we’d naturally be delighted to see higher sales in the beer category as well. Thank you very much for your active participation.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:07:13
Great.
Mr. Nesses, if you still have two minutes, he asks.
I'm not exactly sure if the name fits.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's exactly how the schedule was laid out in the project. Maybe you could give us a little insight into that.

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 1:07:34
Maybe from the very beginning. We started this last year with a concept phase at the end of the year. It was important to us to allow enough time for the conceptualization phase, with the goal of completing this concept phase in Q2, so to speak. Due to various issues, we didn’t actually begin implementation until this fall.
And the goal is to complete this project in January—that is, by December or January—and then move on to implementation and operationalization. In other words, that was the rough timeline on our end for implementation.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:08:11
Another interesting question was how the data is implemented via the Cooper Supplier Portal or the supplier portal, and ultimately how suppliers enter the data. What is the current status there?

Franz-Rudolf Neyse 1:08:26
Yes, so of course it’s always a challenge to ensure that suppliers actually enter the data correctly. Of course, one issue here is supplier documents—that is, these operational tasks that are currently handled manually in some cases by the purchasing department, either through Kupa or via this system.
ERP system—essentially A.-Pokument solutions—to display and query the data and then import it into the system. Of course, I see that every supplier has different systems. That’s the biggest challenge, which is why we also need to narrow down what constitutes essential information coming through this system. But we won’t be able to avoid it.
We need to define a channel here to address these issues, and then we’ll try to use AI to develop solutions—simply to provide support, including for suppliers, so to speak, to make their lives a little easier. But of course, this is a challenge that will continue to arise. We already have the system.
It’s well-known in practice. That means sourcing processes are carried out through it. That’s why there’s consistency there. There will be cases where smaller suppliers can’t do this, and we’ll have to find a workaround.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:09:32
But I also have to say here that as the use of AI capabilities increases, data collection and so on will also become significantly easier for suppliers. I mean, we can see that AI capabilities.
double every 7 months. We’re really—we’re really still in the early stages. And if individual pieces of information from a supplier are available in, let’s say, a different structure and in different formats, it will
and it’s already no longer, let’s say, an excuse to convert them into this new structure and target formats. For example, existing documentation, etc., can be made readily available via drag-and-drop or integration to facilitate the conversion into the required structures and formats
This process then happens automatically, and that’s something we’re already seeing today—and it certainly shouldn’t deter us from establishing such standards, because we’ve essentially been, let’s say, afraid from the very beginning of capturing this data in this way.
At the same time, however, we’ve also made it possible for this collection of information—that is, certificates, master data, and so on—to be carried out not only by suppliers via the portal, but also by buyers or teams.
They can then do this independently—let’s say, on behalf of the supplier—and thus have access to this information as well as the ability to edit it. This is always linked to an approval workflow, but it’s essential—and ultimately, it’s about enabling practicality in day-to-day business operations, which is also ’ne
A key requirement—not only from Mr. Neyses but also from management—was that practicality be a top priority.
I find it particularly interesting to consider how other functions will ultimately be involved. It’s also identified as a key success factor here. I believe this refers in particular to the topic of evaluation, but also to qualification. We have a quality assurance department
Of course, these are separate processes that operate within their own systems and logic. Mr. Naasis, would you like to explain to us how you ultimately manage the process across departments?

Neyses Franz-Rudolf 1:11:52
Hmm.
Yes, well, we do have our own processes, of course—particularly the quality department and incoming goods inspection—which are, of course, managed in other systems, so to speak. However, we will transfer the results—especially the relevant issues—into this system. That means supplier audits, as well as the evaluation of those audits.
We’ll incorporate the results of supplier-related issues—that is, quality issues—into the process, so to speak, and include them in the stage pool or in this evaluation. So, of course, we’re not just relying on—let’s say—the key questions that you’ve all just seen in broad terms; the stakeholders are, of course, involved.
But we’ll also involve relevant stakeholders from functional departments—such as the quality department—in the process of conducting an evaluation based on the results that are relevant to us.

Kittel, Fabian | amc Group 1:12:45
Great.
I think we’ve answered all the other questions during the
webinar. If, after the fact, there’s a question you absolutely need answered, please don’t hesitate to contact me. I can also
put you in touch with the right people on a case-by-case basis, in coordination with Nice, if that makes sense here and there. And yes, I’m very pleased with the active participation—even now, 7 minutes past the scheduled time, we still have over 20 people here. So thank you very, very much for your interest, and I can only encourage you to
get involved and be active. We’d be happy to support SAMC by providing input to further explore these approaches in one-on-one discussions—specifically, what we bring to the table as standard, what might ultimately emerge from our potential joint development efforts, and what kind of results
can expect within a reasonable timeframe. That’s why I’m very pleased that you’ve reached out. As mentioned, we’ll send the materials again afterward, and yes, please feel free to participate in other formats of our “Future Workshop: Procurement and Supply Chain Management.” The whole experience becomes especially meaningful when we receive these practical insights. That’s why I’d like to express my sincere thanks once again.
Thank you, Mr. Naises, for your willingness to share this so openly with us. I wish everyone a wonderful rest of the week, and please stay healthy. Thank you, and see you soon.