Thank you Mitch Schneider. 

For years I have been railing about the need for synchronized data in the aftermarket. In his August column in this magazine, Mitch put a familiar and sad face on the problem. In doing so, he cast the problem in a light that made it obvious how unsynchronized data will cause the aftermarket to continue to lose sales to the OE channel if we don’t get our act together. 

Briefly, the problem that Mitch encountered had to do with discrepant parts descriptions (a.k.a. — unsynchronized data) between his electronic shop manual and his parts catalogs.

It seems through four different electronic sources, he found as many different descriptions for the same part. And it’s not as though there were subtle or slight variations in descriptions; it was as though they were describing totally different things. Specifically, he made reference to working on a 1998 Ford Windstar and discovering a problem with one of two small vacuum motors at each end of the intake manifold. Mitch contends that around his shop, they refer to such a creature as an IMRC valve for intake manifold runner control. 

In checking his electronic shop manual, the part is referred to as an IMRC valve. However, upon checking several other sources, including both paper and electronic catalogs, he discovered his IMRC valve is an “engine breaker control and bracket assembly” to one vendor, a “choke pull-off” to another and a “vacuum limiter” to a third.

One part with four names is absurd. And it’s not as though the descriptions are similar. They aren’t even close. I doubt that many ASE Certified Master Technicians would look at a list of those four part descriptions and conclude that they were all the same part.

As Mitch observed, it is difficult enough for a tech like him with several decades of experience to decode the data, so how would any parts seller expect a mere rookie to determine the right part? The answer is, he probably wouldn’t. Not without ordering it, getting the wrong part and then returning it for the right one. 

This is a working, real world example of the problem with data that is unsynchronized. In the face of such data, our trading partners have a more difficult time selling our products. It happens in countless ways. One time it might be when a warehouse worker discovers that a pallet he is trying to put in a bin won’t fit because the product dimensions in his warehouse’s system aren’t matched up with the newest packaging dimensions from the supplier.

Another time it might be when a bookkeeper is trying to reconcile an invoice problem where an invoice quantity doesn’t match a shipped quantity, owing to a mismatch between minimum order quantities between the buyer’s and seller’s systems. 

I have often said that many, if not most, of the compelling problems of the aftermarket are rooted in bad data: problems ranging from depressed margins and stagnant inventory turns to overstocks and mounting returns. 

Yet, most people still don’t get it. I know of several companies, manufacturers and resellers alike, that have formed teams and task forces to look into solving problems such as reducing inventory or controlling returns. Those groups often come up with ways to alleviate the symptoms of the problem, but rarely address the root cause: inaccurate, incomplete or unsynchronized data. 

Part of the problem continues to be the tendency for us in the aftermarket to equate any discussion about data with eCat application data (part numbers as applied to a year, make and model). In many ways that is understandable, given that we are an application-driven industry. 

I saw ample confirmation of this phenomenon in an article by Chris Miller in the September issue of Aftermarket Business entitled “Data: The missing link?” While Chris spends nearly equal amounts of time talking about application catalog data (ACES) and product attribute data (PIES), it is clear from nearly every quote that appears in the article about data that people are referencing application data.

Several resellers mention that data isn’t a big deal to them, since “all I do is load it from a CD every month” — a reference to the application data supplied by their eCat provider. This, therefore, becomes evidence that the focus on data is just application data and not product attribute data.

Generally speaking, the industry finally seems to be embracing the ACES application data standard. There is great conversation about it at industry meetings and it is even finding its way into the vocabularies of Luddites and technophobes.

But when it comes to product attribute data, or PIES data, the aftermarket is struggling. We must expand our collective consciousness to consider all product attribute data as a critical toolset for modern supply chain management. We need a better understanding of and appreciation for how rich, standardized and synchronized product attribute data can make us all more efficient.

In most other industrial business segments, application data doesn’t matter — product attribute data is the stuff that counts. Take the electrical industry as an example. A counterman at an electrical wholesaler trying to fill an order for a light bulb doesn’t need to ask his customer what brand or model of light fixture the bulb is for. The data he needs is more likely to be some attribute of the product itself, like wattage, the size of the threads on the fitting, the hours of expected life, etc. Product attribute data is the stuff critical to making a sale in that business.

And those same selling opportunities are available to the aftermarket if we can 1) get past our fixation that “data” is only application data and 2) realize the use of standardized and synchronized product attribute data will eliminate redundancy and waste throughout the supply chain. But more importantly, it makes it possible for those nearer to the consumer in the supply chain to use vendor data to make more informed (and subsequently) smarter choices.

I’m not arguing that application data is not important. It is absolutely critical and by necessity has to come first to assure that the part being specified will fit its application. But I think product attribute data is arguably more important in the aftermarket. If all counterpeople have at their disposal is application data, the only thing they can know for sure is that a product will fit. If the same counterpeople can source product attribute data, they can provide much more information to drive a sale. 

Consider a counterperson with a request for brake pads. If application data is all he or she has, about all that can be shared with the customer is that both the value line and the premium line will fit the specified application. Add product attribute data to that mix and the counter staff can say that the premium pad, which costs 40-percent more, will last 70-percent longer and also comes complete with shims and all the mounting hardware. Much, if not most, of the overall degradation of premium line sales to “fit for use” lines can be traced back to this very issue. 

Let’s return to Mitch’s problem with the IMRC valve. If there had been a robust set of product attribute data, there might well have been a picture or line drawing of the part in question, enabling the tech to confirm that the part with the disparate description was indeed like the one he wanted to replace.

But data such as images is product attribute data (PIES), not application data (ACES). No matter how compliant a manufacturer is with ACES application data, without the complementing PIES product description data, the total data package is lacking. 

Denny Welvaert, the president of Dayco, speaking at the recent After-market eForum, made several key observations about the importance of data and PIES data specifically that are worth repeating. 

His case is basically this: The threat from the OEs on our replacement parts business is very real. OE dealerships are awakening to the profit potential of parts and service. Many are making outside sales calls, doing more aggressive marketing and promotions, sharpening their pricing pencil and making deliveries…even hot shotting. And the technician community is responding by sending more business their way.

Welvaert contends that technology is the best foil against this threat. Our incomplete, unstandardized and unsynchronized data are resulting in errors that lead to everything from lost sales to unnecessary returns. He stresses that responding to the OE threat should only serve as an impetus, that once we have standardized synchronized data we can enable the widespread use of real cost-reducing technology like Internet Parts Ordering, automated replenishment, collaborative forecasting, reverse logistics, and any other number of solutions that will improve our supply chain. 

But probably the most revealing insight Welvaert shared was, “even if we never share our normalized data with a single customer, we are a better company for having engaged in the process of becoming PIES compliant.” 

While he wasn’t diminishing the importance of sharing standardized data with trading partners, his discovery is one that several other companies who have engaged in the data cleanup process have observed. Expending the effort to become PIES data compliant has an immediate payback, even before the data is shared with customers.

Denny spoke of how the PIES standard enabled communication with customers to improve on everything from new part introductions to consistency of information on invoices and packing slips, to more error free communications with EDI.

But he also observed something about the data compliance exercise that I wouldn’t have imagined. He talked about how a common standard that came from outside the company worked as an arbiter to bring his internal departments together. Instead of engineers arguing that the way they kept their data was better than the way cataloging or product management kept their data, there was the greater industry authority called PIES that everyone could rally around. As Denny put it, “It’s no longer ‘your data’ and ‘my data,’ it’s ‘our data.’”

It was refreshing to hear a president/CEO type speak with such insight on the subject of the importance of data.

The bottom line is PIES is the opportunity that most aftermarket practitioners are missing out on. Only a handful of companies have managed to get their data normalized and submitted for DAC certification. I suspect that they have all discovered what Denny Welvaert has: that their companies are better off for the effort. And I don’t think it will be long before key customers reward those progressive thinkers with more purchases.