Search
Subscribe

Bookmark and Share

About this Blog

As enterprise supply chains and consumer demand chains have beome globalized, they continue to inefficiently share information “one-up/one-down”. Profound "bullwhip effects" in the chains cause managers to scramble with inventory shortages and consumers attempting to understand product recalls, especially food safety recalls. Add to this the increasing usage of personal mobile devices by managers and consumers seeking real-time information about products, materials and ingredient sources. The popularity of mobile devices with consumers is inexorably tugging at enterprise IT departments to shifting to apps and services. But both consumer and enterprise data is a proprietary asset that must be selectively shared to be efficiently shared.

About Steve Holcombe

Unless otherwise noted, all content on this company blog site is authored by Steve Holcombe as President & CEO of Pardalis, Inc. More profile information: View Steve Holcombe's profile on LinkedIn

Follow @WholeChainCom™ at each of its online locations:

Entries in First Movers (19)

Thursday
Jan262012

Whole Chain Traceability: A Successful Research Funding Strategy

The following work product represents a critical part of the first successful strategy for obtaining funding from the USDA relative to "whole chain" traceability. It is the work of this author as weaved into a USDA National Integrated Food Safety Initiative (NIFSI) funding submission of the Whole Chain Traceability Consortium™ led by Oklahoma State University and filed in June 2011. This work highlights the usefulness of Pardalis' U.S. patents and patents pending to "whole chain" traceability. It highlights the efficacy of employing granular information objects in the Cloud for providing consumer accessibility to any agricultural supply chain. In August 2011 notification was received of an award ($543,000 for 3 years) under the USDA NIFSI for a project entitled Advancement of a whole-chain, stakeholder driven traceability system for agricultural commodities: beef cattle pilot demonstration (Funding Opportunity Number: USDA-NIFSI RFA (FY 2011), Award Number: 2011-51110-31044).

With the funding of the NIFSI project, the USDA has funded a food safety project that is distinguishable from the Food Safety Modernization Act projects being funded by the FDA and conducted by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT). Unlike the IFT/FDA projects, the scope of the funded NIFSI project uniquely encompasses consumer accessibility to supply chain information.

A useful explanation of the benefits of a “whole chain” traceability system may be made with critical traceability identifiers (CTIDs), critical tracking events (CTEs) and Nodes as described in the IFT/FDA Traceability in Food Systems Report. CTEs are those events that must be recorded in order to allow for effective traceability of products in the supply chain. A Node refers to a point in the supply chain when an item is produced, process, shipped or sold. CTEs may be loosely defined as a transaction. Every transaction involves a process that may be separated into a beginning, middle and end.

While important and relevant data exists in any of the phases of a CTE transaction, the entire transaction may be uniquely identified and referenced by a code referred to as a critical tracking identifier (CTID). For example, with the emergence of biosensor development for the real-time detection of foodborne contamination, one may also envision adding associated real-time environmental sampling data from each node.

What is not described or envisioned in the IFT/FDA Traceability in Food Systems Report is the challenge of using even top of the line “one up/one down” product traceability systems that, notwithstanding the use of a single CTID, are inherently limiting in the data sharing options provided to both stakeholders and government regulators. Pause for a moment and compare the foregoing drawing with the next drawing. Compare CTID2 in both drawings with CTID2A, CTID2B, etc. in the next drawing. The IFT/FDA food safety projects described above are at best implementing top of the line "one up/one down" product traceability systems with the use of a single CTID. But with “whole chain” product traceability, in which CTID2 is essentially assigned down to the datum level, transactional and environmental sampling data may in real-time be granularly placed into the hands of supply chain partners, food safety regulators, or even retail customers.

The scope of “whole chain” chain information sharing within the funded USDA NIFSI project goes well beyond the “one up/one down” information sharing of the IFT/FDA projects. The NIFSI project addresses a new way of looking at information sharing for connecting supply chains with consumers. This is essentially accomplished with a system in which a content provider creates data which is then fixed (i.e., made immutable) and users can access that immutable data but cannot change it.

The granularity of Pardalis' Common Point Authoring (CPA) system (as is necessary for a “whole chain” product traceability system) is characterized by the following patent drawing of an informational object (e.g., a document, report or XML object) whose immutable data elements are radically and uniquely identified. The similarities between the foregoing object containing CTID2A, CTID2B, etc., and the immutable data element identifiers of the following drawing, should be self-evident.

For the purposes of the NIFSI funding opportunity, the Pardalis CPA system invention was appropriately characterized as a “whole chain” product traceability system.  A further, high-altitude drawing, characterized the application of the invention to a major U.S. agricultural supply chain:

Several questions were required in the USDA's NIFSI "Review Package" to be addressed before actual funding. The responses to two of those questions were crafted by this author. They are worth inserting here ....

Question 1: A reviewer was skeptical that the system would be capable of handling different levels of data (consumer, producer, RFID, bar code) seamlessly.

There is an assumption in the reviewer’s opinion that data is different because it is consumer, producer, RFID, bar code, etc. The proposed pilot project is based on a premise that data is data. The difference in data that is perceived by the reviewer is not in its categorization per se but in its proprietary nature. That is, it is perceived to be different because it is locked up (often in categories of consumer, producer, RFID, bar code, etc.) in proprietary data silos along the supply and demand chains. It is reasonable to have this viewpoint given the prevalence of "one-up/one-down" data sharing in supply chains. As stated in the Positive Aspects of the Proposal, “[t]he use of open source software and the ability to add consumer access to the tracability (sic) system set this proposal apart from other similar proposals.” The proposed pilot project will demonstrate how an open source approach to increasing interoperability between enterprise data silos (buttressed by metadata permissions and security controls in the hands of the actual data producers) will provide new "whole chain" ways of looking at information sharing in enterprise supply and consumer demand chains. For instance, consumers could opt for retailers to automatically populate their accounts from their actual point-of-sale retail purchases. Consumers could additionally populate accounts in a multi-tenancy social network (like Facebook) using smartphone bar code image capturing applications. Supplemented by cross-reference to an industry GTIN/GLN database, the product identifiers would be associated with company names, time stamps, location and similar metadata. This could empower consumers with a one-stop shop for confidentially reporting suspicious food to FoodSafety.gov. Likewise, consumers could be provided with real-time, relevant food recall information in their multi-tenancy, social networking accounts, and their connected smartphone applications.

Question 2: A member of the panel was skeptical that the consumer accessibility would be largely attractive as this capability currently has limited appeal among consumers.

We recognize this viewpoint to be a highly prevalent opinion within an ag and food industry predominantly sharing data in a “one-up/one-down” manner. When one uses a smartphone today to scan an item in a grocery store, the probability of being able to retrieve any data from the typical ag and food supply chain is very low. However, we have been highly influenced in our thinking by the existing data showing that many consumers do not take appropriate protective actions during a foodborne illness outbreak or food recall. Furthermore, 41 percent of U.S. consumers say they have never looked for any recalled product in their home. Conversely, some consumers overreact to the announcement of a foodborne illness outbreak by not purchasing safe foods. We have been further influenced by how producers of organic and natural products are adopting rapidly evolving smartphone and mobile technologies as a way of communicating directly with consumers, and increasing their market share. We contend that by increasing supply chain transparency with real-time, whole chain technologies, “consumer accessibility” will become more and more appealing.  We contend this to be especially true when there is a product recall and the products are already in the home. And so, again, our high interest in working with FoodSafety.gov.

The foregoing strategy and comments may be freely cited with attribution to this author as CEO of Pardalis, Inc. It is offered in the spirit of the "sharing is winning" principles of the Whole Chain Traceability Consortium™ (now being rebranded as @WholeChainTrace™). However, no right to use Pardalis' patent or patents pending is conveyed thereby. If you wish to be a research collaborator with Pardalis, or to license or use Pardalis' patented innovations, please contact the author.

Go to Part II

Sunday
Feb212010

Networking in Data Ownership in the Cloud

Data Ownership in the Cloud is an open networking group on LinkedIn created in April, 2009. At publication of this blog entry, there are more than 500 members who are loosely networked together under the group's current profile:

Recently the top identity management officer of a major data mining and analytics company said "that ... giving individuals control over the data that is shared ... increases the quality of the data and opens up new business models".

That's an impressive statement coming from a BigCo. But what about going even further? For instance, what about increasing the availability of new, quality data for opening up new, profitable models of data management?

The Data Ownership in the Cloud group on LinkedIn is a global venue for multi-disciplinary networking between technologists and non-technologists interested in providing thought leadership on this critical issue.

What technologies and standards (Cloud Computing, Web 2.0, Semantic Web, Enterprise 2.0, Health 2.0, Privacy 2.0, Manufacturing 2.0, Social Networking, SaaS, Security 2.0, RFID 2.0, microformat standards, identification standards, minimal disclosures, identity management) will enable data ownership in the Cloud?

What are the non-technological factors (sociological, political, psychological, legal)?

Members are heartily encouraged to post, share and discuss stories (including relevant journal entries from their own blogs) that touch upon new and emerging models for user-centric data management.

I've emphasized "between technologists and non-technologists", above, because this is a raison d'etre for the group. It has been my distinct impression that an over-emphasis on technology (primarily 'security') has precluded the free-thinking from which new and emerging models for user-centric data management must come. And though the majority of group members may be defined as 'technologists', the discussions and postings have revealed a wonderful sensitivity to an approach balancing security with risk and opportunity.

Here are some examples.

Luk Vervenne, CEO and founder, Synergetics NV, just posted to the group a link regarding work on a manifesto for the "Internet of Subjects".

The central role individuals now play in the Internet, calls for a radical rethinking of its organisation, in particular, the way the ever-increasing flow of personal data is being created, stored, connected, accessed, protected, tracked, exploited and managed. There is a need to create the foundations of an Internet where the architecture creates the conditions for the free association of self-conscious individuals, beyond the pre-defined boundaries of current information systems and social networks.

Lest you think the group to be a bit too abstract, consider this excerpt from the discussion begun by Dirk Rodgers, Sr. Consultant, Serialization & Pedigree at Cardinal Health, entitled "Who owns supply chain visibility data?"

Who owns supply chain visibility data? Does the manufacturer of a product retain any rights to track that product after it enters the supply chain? What if the product is a pharmaceutical and it is found to have a life-threatening defect? Should technology or standards availability play any role in answering these questions? These kinds of questions come up occasionally in discussions of track and trace systems design when people talk about the future of "full supply chain visibility" ....

And a very active commenter within the Data Ownership group - Eve Maler, Distinguished Engineer, Identity Services at PayPal - has been chairing seminal activities of the User-Managed Access (UMA) working group of the Kantara Initiative:

The purpose of the UMA Work Group (charter) is to develop specs that let an individual control the authorization of data sharing and service access made between online services on the individual's behalf, and to facilitate interoperable implementations of the specs.

I'd be remiss in not mentioning other highly active commenters within the group to include Brian Hennessey, Jack Repenning, Joe Andrieu, Anthony Freed, Julian Goh, and Al Macintyre. Thanks to you guys and all of the other contributors!

But is the group having any affect on the real world being lived by any of its members? Well, that's another critical reason for the existence of the Data Ownership group - "to post, share and discuss stories that touch upon new and emerging models for user-centric data management".

One day last fall, John Bailey, the Executive Direct of Top 10 Produce LLC, came wandering into the group. One thing led to another and now our two companies - Pardalis and Top 10 Produce - have joined with Oklahoma State University (Biosystems and Ag Engineering), North Dakota State University (School of Food Systems) and Michigan State University (Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards) in recently filing for two significant funding opportunities offered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Speciality Crops Research Initiative was filed for with OSU, NDSU and MSU in January, 2010 for $4M over 5 years. The USDA Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative was filed for with OSU for $3M over 4 years. Next up is the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative providing funding opportunities of up to $25M over 5 years. That'll be filed later this spring.

So I can unreservedly say that, yes, when it comes to Pardalis and Top 10 Produce, networking in Data Ownership in the Cloud is having a very positive affect.

Check out the group at http://tinyurl.com/datacloud and see why Dirk Rodgers says, "I believe this group could become the best source for information about the implications [of data ownership in the cloud]."

Wednesday
Aug052009

Kim Cameron: Why OpenID leads to Information Cards

From Kim Cameron's short biography:

"Kim Cameron is Chief Architect of Identity in the Connected Systems Division at Microsoft, where heworks on theevolution of Active Directory, Federation Services, Identity Lifecycle Manager, CardSpace and Microsoft’s other Identity Metasystem products. "

Why OpenID leads to Information Cards (5m 41s)

Friday
Jul312009

Ars Technica: Inside the AP's plan to "wrap" its content

The following was published by Nate Anderson for ARS Technica on 28 July 2009:

The Associated Press last week rolled out its brave new plan to "apply protective format to news." The AP's news registry will "tag and track all AP content online to assure compliance with terms of use," and it will provide a "platform for protect, point, and pay." That's a lot of "p"-prefaced jargon, but it boils down to a sort of DRM for news—"enforcement," in AP-speak.

For the complete article go to DRM for news? Inside the AP's plan to "wrap" its content. And see in particular the technical specifications for hNews, an extension of hAtom.

For a comparable publication, see Author-Level Digital Rights Management and the Common Point Authoring System: Protecting Information Exchange.

Thursday
Feb192009

Microsoft Office Applications and Data Ownership - Part II

Return to Part I

The growing dominance of Microsoft's BizTalk Server offers an interesting - and very real - opportunity for accelerating the transformation of Microsoft Office Applications into SaaS-anized supply chain tools for small businesses (SMBs).

BizTalk is the leader in enterprise platform integration. Click on the thumbnail to the right to see an abridged version of the Magic Quadrant found in Magic Quadrant for Application Infrastructure for Back-End Application Integration Projects (Gartner, 19 Dec. 2008). This report is so favorable that Microsoft has licensed this publication for prominent display at Microsoft's BizTalk Server website.

Gartner says that Microsoft's leadership is directly tied to the current and forward-looking strengths of BizTalk:

  • Brand recognition, global reach, mind share and huge installed base of products that are leveraged for BizTalk Server sales.
  • BizTalk Server installed customer base of more than 8,000 enterprises — two-thirds are estimated to be BizTalk Server 2006 Enterprise Edition or newer.
  • BizTalk Server is an identified part of two of Microsoft’s largest and most aggressive initiatives: Microsoft’s Oslo technology [a data modeling platform] and Windows Azure Services Platform [a Cloud computing platform].

But Gartner also has cautionary comments:

  • Comprehensive, general-purpose metadata management (that is, business process models, component models, data models, applications, services and interface artifacts) will only become available incrementally as future versions of Microsoft’s Oslo technology and Windows Azure extend the capabilities that exist today in BizTalk.
  • Currently there are no products for managing and implementing policy and life cycle management integrated with BizTalk Server.

Let's take a look at the following high-altitude slides for better understanding what Gartner is talking about vis-a-vis 'life cycle management'. 

View Microsoft Office Applications and Data Ownership - Part II on Scribd

As mentioned in the slide show, integrating Pardalis' metadata business rules with BizTalk's business rules provides a head start for massively connecting 10's of millions (to say the least) of small businesses to BizTalk's enterprise business activity monitoring. The key is providing small businesses with life cycle, chain-of-custody managment of their own data products. Providing this kind of data ownership to small businesses is the path of least resistance to Ballmer's visions of integrating supply chain competitors.