What problem are we solving?
§1 of 6 · ~2 min read
Regulators and large manufacturers are requiring their supply chains to prove how data flows between them. Building the infrastructure to provide that proof costs more than most of the chain can justify.
The situation
Most companies that need to share data across their supply chain do not actually ship anything different at the end of the project. They ship the same parts, with the same suppliers, on the same trucks. Nothing about the product changes. What changes is that a regulator, or a customer, or a tier-1 OEM (the vehicle manufacturer at the top of the supply chain), has told them they have four months to prove how the data flows.
The infrastructure required to prove it has historically cost more, in engineering time and monthly bills, than the data exchange itself was ever going to save. A small tier-3 supplier with no IT team is suddenly told to stand up server infrastructure that costs upwards of €300 a month before engineering, requires container-orchestration expertise, and has to be running before the OEM’s deadline. For most of the supply chain, that is the reason participation has not happened yet.
It is not a missing protocol. It is a missing platform.
On Kaphera’s internal estimate, roughly 85% of the Catena-X supply chain has been priced out of participation on the old terms. Not because they don’t want to participate, and not because the technology doesn’t exist, but because the operations layer that turns the technology into a product has been missing.
Next: §2 Why is this hard? →