Most business cases for supply-chain visibility count the platform: software, security and support. Few count the work at partner companies that makes the information worth having, from connecting systems to correcting a record before a customer acts on it. Membership fees can keep the service running while the cooperation behind it quietly runs down.
The authors argue that “who pays?” is really four separate decisions: who gets access and on what terms, who funds the service’s availability, who does the contributor work and what makes it worth sustaining, and who holds the decision rights. Settled as one price, the gaps disappear from view. Drawing on Rotterdam’s Secure Chain, the US FLOW programme and a German scheme that funds entry to Catena-X, they show how charges can be shared, and why pricing alone cannot keep voluntary contributors at the table.
No model is exempt from that test, community-owned ones included. If a commercial provider can run the service better and cheaper, that is the answer; if the benefits do not cover the full cost, the proposal should shrink or stop. The goal is to make the bill smaller and give contributors reasons to stay, not to devise a cleverer way of dividing it.
For Nomon, this is the commercial half of the argument made in Corridor Sovereignty and Profit per Corridor: no single party should own the coordinating layer, and every party that keeps it useful needs a sound business reason to stay.
Read the full article in LogiSYM Magazine →Co-authored by Mikael Lind, Senior Strategic Research Advisor at RISE and (Adjunct) Professor in Maritime Informatics at Chalmers; Shad Blidberg Hallam, Founder & Executive Lead of Nomon AB; and Wolfgang Lehmacher, global supply chain expert and former World Economic Forum director.
SHARED VISIBILITY · DATA-SHARING ECONOMICS · FEDERATED DATA SHARING · VIRTUAL WATCH TOWER · TRANSPORT SYSTEMS