SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Don't let Walmart Post-Audits catch you off guard in 2025. Join Allie and Bekah to learn best practices for preventing and disputing Post Audits.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Post Audits are preventable and disputable! Join Allie and Bekah to learn how to best prepare for Walmart Post Audits.

Articles

Cash Flow Analysis for Suppliers: What the Formula Leaves Out

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

A supplier can have healthy sales, solid margins, and customers that technically pay on time, but still find that less cash arrived at the end of the month than expected. 

For brands selling into major retail, the explanation is often buried inside accounts receivable, where shortage claims, OTIF charges, and pricing deductions can affect payments at different points in the collection cycle.  

Some deductions may be resolved quickly, while others are disputed and recovered weeks later. Individually, these deductions can look and feel like routine noise. But together, they can affect when thousands of dollars in expected revenue become available cash. 

Traditional cash flow metrics are useful. They simply weren't designed to explain every movement happening 

 those totals. Days sales outstanding (DSO), for example, can show that collections are taking longer, but it doesn't necessarily reveal whether the change came from deductions, slower dispute resolution, or a recurring operational issue. 

This is exactly where cash flow analysis for suppliers becomes most useful: Not by replacing the standard formula, but by looking one level deeper. Tracking retailer deductions as their own signal can show where cash is getting held up, which patterns are growing, and where an operational fix today could prevent another deduction tomorrow. 

Where Deductions Get Lost in Cash Flow Analysis 

 measures the time between spending cash to operate the business and collecting cash from customers.  

How Deductions Delay Cash, Even When They're Recovered 

A successful dispute doesn't put cash back where it started. Even when a dispute is resolved in the supplier's favor, the recovered amount typically shows up on a later remittance rather than the one it was originally deducted from. 

The supplier may ultimately recover every dollar and still experience a meaningful delay between invoicing and having that cash available. 

That's an important distinction in cash flow analysis. DSO can eventually reflect the longer collection timeline, but it doesn't necessarily explain that part of the delay came from a deduction or that the same issue is repeating across dozens of invoices. 

In other words, recovery and timing are two different questions. A deduction can be financially recoverable and still create temporary working capital pressure while the dispute is being resolved. 

What Suppliers Should Monitor Each Week 

Monthly financial reporting shows what happened. A weekly deduction review can provide an earlier indication of what is changing inside receivables. 

Looking at both dollars and rates matters. Total deduction dollars may rise simply because sales are growing. If sales with a retailer increase 8% while shortage deductions increase 30%, however, the change likely reflects more than additional volume. Something in the order-to-cash process may deserve attention. 

Retailer- and code-level views add context. One retailer accounting for a growing share of deductions may point to an account-specific issue. A recurring shortage, pricing, shipping, or compliance code may indicate a problem further upstream in fulfillment, item setup, transportation, or another operational process. 

Over time, this history creates a baseline. Teams can identify deduction rates rising faster than sales, longer resolution times, falling recovery rates, or recurring issues before they disappear into another month's aggregate receivables number. 

Tracking deductions separately gives teams more context about what is affecting receivables, but visibility alone won't recover revenue. Teams still need a practical way to determine which deductions warrant action and manage the work required to dispute them. 

That distinction becomes especially important with smaller deductions. Individually, they may not justify the time required to identify the claim, gather documentation, navigate retailer-specific dispute requirements, and submit the dispute. Across hundreds or thousands of claims, however, those smaller amounts can become significant. 

 previously maintained a $500 write-off threshold because smaller deductions were not worth the manual effort required to pursue them. After automating much of the deduction management process, including identifying deductions, gathering supporting documentation, and submitting disputes, Bissell eliminated the threshold and recovered 6,000 deductions that otherwise would have been written off. 

The bigger opportunity was making those smaller claims worth pursuing. Automation changed the economics of recovery by reducing the administrative work behind each dispute. 

Deduction data can also support prevention. Tracking recurring deductions by retailer, code, and root cause can help teams trace losses back to the processes creating them. Over time, the goal is not simply to dispute deductions faster or recover more of them. It is also to reduce the number of preventable deductions that occur in the first place. 

How do retailer deductions affect days sales outstanding (DSO)? 

A deduction can extend the time between invoicing and collecting the full amount owed. Even when a supplier successfully disputes a deduction, the recovered cash may arrive on a later remittance. That delay remains part of the receivables cycle and can contribute to higher DSO. 

What deduction metrics should suppliers track? 

At minimum, suppliers should track total deduction dollars, deductions as a percentage of sales, deduction volume by retailer and code, recovery rate, days to resolution, and recurring root causes. Together, those measures provide a clearer view of both financial impact and the operational patterns behind it. 

Can reducing retailer deductions improve working capital? 

Yes. Recovering successful disputes can return cash that might otherwise be written off, while preventing recurring deductions can reduce future collection delays. That makes deduction management relevant to both revenue recovery and working capital performance. 

A Clearer View of What Shapes Cash Flow 

The standard cash flow formula still tells an important part of the story. Tracking deductions separately adds the context suppliers need to understand what’s happening behind the numbers. 

For suppliers, deductions can explain part of the distance between invoiced revenue and available cash. Tracking where those deductions originate, how long they remain unresolved, and which issues recur adds context that aggregate receivables metrics alone cannot provide. 

 gives suppliers a consolidated view of deductions across retailers, helping teams prioritize recovery efforts and identify patterns behind recurring losses. The financial metrics show where cash stands. Better deduction visibility helps explain how it got there. 

A Data-Driven Look at Sourcing and Supplier Lead Times for Key CPG Ingredients 

In the consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry, there is a real difference between managing sourcing risk and reacting to it. Every quarter, sourcing teams walk through the same numbers of which ingredients are up and what inflation is doing to margins. The conversation feels like progress because there are numbers attached to it, but price is one of the last things to move when an ingredient supply chain runs into trouble. 

By the time a commodity price shows up in a sourcing review, the disruption behind it has been building for months. Maybe a supplier has been taking longer than usual to confirm orders, or a region's shipping windows have been stretching out, and a category fill rate has been sliding long before it is called a shortage. All that data is accessible through 

 and supplier reliability, even before a price point is tied to it. Unfortunately, most sourcing and merchandising teams are only watching these signals through the view of a single supplier relationship, which means they see the problems much later than they could be. 

Price tells sourcing teams what disruption has already cost. Lead-time drift can help show where operational pressure is building. 

Price Is the Wrong Signal To Watch First 

Price is a record of what has already happened somewhere upstream. It reaches your invoice well after the disruption actually occurred. Whether that disruption is a new tariff, a failed harvest, or a spike in transportation costs, it is important to understand the root cause in order to move forward. 

 on oil-linked costs across CPGs lays out why the lag between disruption and price exists. Sustained energy shocks lengthen lead times and push companies toward nearshoring and regionalization long before those shocks ever show up as a price line. The structural costs that follow do not unwind quickly once oil prices ease. A sourcing team that manages by price alone is almost always working from information that is already a few steps behind reality, even when the price data itself is perfectly accurate. 

Supply Chain Risk Management Is Shifting From Cyclical to Structural 

Most sourcing teams have historically treated ingredient volatility as a cycle. It starts with a bad harvest, then there’s a currency swing that results in a disruption, which eventually works itself out, and everyone goes back to normal. While there is truth to this, as a baseline assumption, this outlook is getting harder to justify. 

 surveyed 100 global supply chain leaders in 2025, and 82% reported that their supply chains were affected by new tariffs. Among those facing tariff impact, 39% are building 

 plans. Those are the same resilience strategies the survey has tracked since 2020, but they are moving at a significantly faster pace this year. 

 reached a similar conclusion in its 2026 outlook for food and beverage. The outlook points to upstream fragility in dairy, meat, produce, and specialty ingredients as a downstream strategic problem for manufacturers. Regional sourcing is growing less reliable as import dependence rises. A sourcing team that treats this as a one-year headline will likely handle the next disruption differently than one that has already built dual sourcing and lead-time monitoring into its standing practice. 

CPG Ingredient Sourcing Risk Across Coffee, Cocoa, and Spices 

Volatility does not look the same across every ingredient, and the differences matter when it comes to how a sourcing team plans around them. 

Coffee: Single-Origin Concentration Risk 

 buys roughly 500 million pounds of green coffee a year, mostly from Brazil and Vietnam, which have faced tariffs of 50% and 20%

 respectively. That concentration  contributed to the company's decision to raise Folgers and Café Bustelo prices three times in 2025. In December, it 

 after coffee was added to a tariff exemption list, choosing to absorb $75 million in costs instead. When a business depends heavily on one or two origin countries for a raw material, a policy change in either country can move the entire cost base overnight. 

 sources roughly 17,000 ingredients from 80 countries, which gives it a very different lever to work with than the Smucker scenario. Its annualized tariff exposure climbed toward $140 million in 2025. The company cut the net impact to about $20 million through alternative sourcing, cost discipline, and pricing, and it is running the same playbook again in 2026. Wide supplier diversification did not make McCormick immune to tariffs or commodity swings, but it did give the company more places to absorb the shock without all of it affecting shelf price. 

Cocoa: Structural Scarcity, Divergent Responses 

Hershey, Mondelēz, and Nestlé are all facing the same underlying shortage, with cocoa production concentrated in Ivory Coast and Ghana, and squeezed further by weather and crop disease. But their responses have taken different shapes. 

 has diversified into Ecuador and Brazil and built new visibility into pollination trends, weather patterns, and pod counts across its supply base. 

 has pursued similar geographic diversification and, as of 2026, became the first major food company producing cell-cultured chocolate at a commercial scale. 

 has stayed more concentrated in West Africa, choosing to lean on sustainable-sourcing programs instead. 

A single sourcing team has visibility into its own suppliers and its own late shipments. What it can't easily tell is whether the rest of the category is experiencing the same drift, or whether one supplier's slowdown is an isolated problem or the leading proof of something bigger. 

This gap is why it is important to read sourcing decisions through a wider lens than any one single trading relationship. A network built on order, shipment, and trading-relationship performance data across many suppliers and retailers has a real chance of surfacing a pattern, sometimes as early as days or weeks before it reaches a company's own reporting. It is important to note, though, that no single dataset can answer every question about lead times on its own. It is necessary that the infrastructure exists to ask that question at the network scale, across many suppliers and retailers, rather than reconstructing supplier by supplier after every disruption. 

What This Means for Sourcing and Merchandising Leaders 

The payoff of treating lead time as an early indicator looks different depending on which side of the relationship you sit on. 

The order-to-arrival gap is where merchandising teams tend to get surprised. Suppliers who can show you visible lead-time reliability data are worth building deeper relationships with, not just the ones offering the lowest price this quarter. A supplier who flags a stretching lead time early is much easier to plan around than one who stays quiet until the shipment is already late. 

Is ingredient price volatility mostly a tariff story? 

No. Tariffs are one driver of price volatility, but weather, crop disease, and energy costs can move lead times independently of trade policy.  

What is the difference between a leading and a lagging sourcing indicator? 

A lagging indicator shows up after a disruption has already happened, like a missed delivery or a price increase. A leading indicator, like a supplier taking longer to confirm orders or a region's shipping windows stretching, tends to show up before the disruption reaches your business. 

Does diversifying suppliers eliminate lead-time risk? 

Not entirely, but it does change the shape of the risk you carry. McCormick's 80-country supplier base did not stop tariffs and commodity costs from rising, but it gave the company more levers to offset the impact without it affecting shelf price too heavily. 

See Supplier Lead-Time Risk Before It Hits Production 

Better sourcing decisions start with better-connected data across orders, shipments, inventory, and supplier performance. 

gives enterprise suppliers visibility. You can see lead-time drift and reliability signals early, before they turn into a missed production run or an empty shelf. 

What Is ERP Integration Debt? A Guide for Post-M&A Supply Chain Teams 

For a company that's just come through a merger or acquisition, the strategy involved with closing the deal was only the beginning. The next challenge is bringing two operating environments together, and that can mean two ERPs, two item catalogs, two sets of EDI connections, and two ways of working with trading partners. 

Some overlap is expected as companies rarely enter a merger with systems designed to fit neatly together. The problems surface when temporary workarounds become permanent ones. Teams keep the business moving, systems continue running side by side, and small inconsistencies begin accumulating.  

Eventually, those inconsistencies surface as duplicate records, failed transactions, missed shipments, compliance issues, and 

. The accumulation of those inconsistencies is 

. Understanding where it comes from gives supply chain teams a better chance to address it before everyday workarounds become long-term operational problems. 

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) integration debt builds when systems, data, and business processes that need to work together remain partially disconnected or dependent on workarounds over time.  

One company acquires another and suddenly inherits new and different tech environments. Technical debt often refers to shortcuts or aging architecture within a technology environment.  

 created when systems that should work together still rely on duplicate processes, mappings, data, or connections. 

In a post-merger and acquisition (M&A) environment, that might mean: 

None of these issues necessarily cause immediate failure. In fact, keeping both environments running may be exactly what the business needs during the early stages of a merger. 

However, it is important to know whether that arrangement is a temporary step toward integration or will maintaining both environments become the new normal and subtly accumulate debt.   

Why Mergers and Acquisitions Create ERP Integration Challenges 

Every acquired company brings years of operational decisions into a merger. Its ERP, item data, EDI connections, business rules, and trading-partner relationships were built around how that organization operated before the deal. Bringing those environments together takes time. 

During that transition, keeping existing systems running can be the safest way to protect orders, shipments, invoices, and customer relationships. The challenge is making sure those temporary arrangements don't create unnecessary complexity over the long term. 

A merged organization may find itself managing: 

At first, these may simply be signs of a company working through integration, but unresolved differences require more manual work and make it harder to maintain a consistent view of the business. That's where ERP integration debt begins to matter. 

4 Signs ERP Integration Debt Is Affecting Supply Chain Operations 

ERP integration debt rarely arrives labeled as an ERP problem. Supply chain teams are more likely to experience it as recurring exceptions, reconciliation work, or inconsistent trading partner performance. A few signals are especially worth watching. 

1. Duplicate or Conflicting Item and Vendor IDs 

The same product or vendor may exist under different identifiers because the legacy item masters haven't been fully reconciled. 

A duplicate record alone isn't necessarily a problem. The risk comes when 

 to create orders, shipments, invoices, or other transactions. 

2. Location Data Doesn't Match Across Systems 

Global Location Numbers (GLNs), ship-to locations, distribution centers (DCs), and other location identifiers need to remain consistent across systems and trading partners. 

When legacy environments identify the same location differently, teams may spend more time reconciling data or troubleshooting transactions that appear correct in one system but not another. 

3. ASNs and Other EDI Transactions Require More Troubleshooting 

 (ASNs) are particularly sensitive to data quality because they bring together information about orders, items, quantities, locations, and shipments. 

If those inputs come from systems that don't fully agree, transaction errors and retailer validation failures can become more common. 

4. Retailer Compliance Performance Becomes Harder to Explain 

Compliance issues may also begin appearing across trading partners without an obvious common cause. 

When multiple legacy systems, mappings, and workflows are involved, teams can spend significant time fixing individual exceptions without seeing the underlying pattern. 

One exception may simply be an exception. Repeated problems involving the same products, locations, transactions, or legacy systems are worth investigating as a broader integration issue. 

How ERP Integration Debt Can Affect Post-Merger Performance 

The cost of ERP integration debt is often found in the time required to keep disconnected processes functioning. 

That work adds operational overhead and can make it harder to capture the efficiencies the merger was intended to create. 

The supply chain impact can be especially visible in retailer relationships. An order may originate in one system, pull item information from another process, and ultimately produce an ASN or invoice that may not meet a retailer's exact requirements. A discrepancy anywhere along that path can create chargebacks downstream. 

That distinction matters here because being connected doesn't automatically mean every transaction is performing as expected. Post-merger integration gives teams an opportunity to look beyond whether systems can exchange information and ask whether the combined environment is producing accurate, consistent transactions across the business. For supply chain leaders, that's often a much more useful measure of integration progress. 

How to Identify ERP Integration Debt After a Merger 

A full ERP consolidation project isn't necessary to start understanding where integration debt exists. Supply chain teams can begin with a focused review of the places where the two legacy environments now overlap. 

where complexity exists, why it exists, and whether it is still serving a purpose

. That gives leaders a much better starting point for deciding what should be consolidated, what can remain separate, and what needs attention first. 

How to Reduce ERP Integration Debt Without Disrupting Operations 

ERP integration debt doesn't have to be solved all at once. 

In many post-M&A environments, a phased approach makes more sense. Start with the integration gaps creating the greatest operational impact and work outward from there. 

This turns ERP integration from an abstract technology project into a practical operational roadmap. The objective is to make sure the systems, data, and connections that matter to the supply chain can work together reliably. 

Frequently Asked Questions About ERP Integration Debt 

What is the difference between ERP integration debt and technical debt? 

Technical debt generally refers to technology shortcuts, aging architecture, or deferred development work within a system or application. ERP integration debt describes the operational complexity that accumulates between systems when data, processes, and integrations remain fragmented or dependent on workarounds. 

Does ERP integration debt only happen after mergers and acquisitions? 

No. Companies can accumulate integration debt through rapid growth, ERP migrations, new business units, acquisitions, or years of adding systems and connections without consolidating them. M&A is a common trigger because it can bring two established technology environments together almost overnight. 

How does ERP integration debt affect retailer compliance? 

Disconnected item data, location information, mappings, and trading-partner processes can increase the chance that transactions don't match retailer requirements. Those inconsistencies may contribute to validation errors, compliance issues, additional manual work, and chargebacks. 

Do companies need to replace their legacy ERP systems to fix integration debt? 

Not necessarily. ERP replacement is one option, but it isn't the only one. Organizations can often make meaningful progress by aligning master data, consolidating redundant trading-partner connections, standardizing mappings, improving visibility, and addressing the integration gaps creating the most operational friction. 

What's the first step to reducing ERP integration debt? 

Start by identifying where the two environments overlap. Review shared items, trading partners, EDI and API connections, transaction performance, and manual reconciliation work. That creates a practical baseline for deciding what should be addressed first. 

Turning Post-A&M Integration Into an Operational Advantage 

Some integration complexity after a merger is normal. The important question is what happens to it next. When teams can see where duplicate data, systems, and trading-partner connections are creating friction, they can begin prioritizing the areas that matter most to day-to-day performance. 

That work can do more than reduce integration debt. It can leave the combined organization with cleaner data, clearer processes, stronger visibility, and a better foundation for working with trading partners. Explore 

 for more practical guidance for supply chain teams working through EDI, data, compliance, and trading-partner complexity. 

Target Compliance Policy: A Credit Score for Suppliers 

A first-time supplier usually meets the Target compliance policy as a list of separate fines. There is a charge for a late shipment, another for a short one, and another for an advance ship notice (ASN) that arrived after the truck did. Read that way, the program looks like a minefield, and the natural response is to chase whichever charge landed last. 

There is a better way to read it. Target’s metrics work less like independent traps and more like the inputs to a credit score. They are separate behaviors, measured over time, that add up to one signal of how much trust a retailer extends. The comparison is not perfect, but it still gives a new supplier a way to tell a bad month from a bad pattern. 

What Does a Credit Score Actually Measure? 

A FICO Score is a three-digit number between 300 and 850, drawn from a person’s credit report. 

 to judge how likely a borrower is to repay. Five weighted factors go into it: 

None of the five is a rule a borrower passes or fails. Each one is a running measure, and the score moves as the measures move. One missed payment in ten years and one a month both count as late payments. Lenders read them very differently. 

What Does Target Vendor Compliance Measure? 

Target grades suppliers through the Perfect Order Program, sometimes called OTFR for On Time Fill Rate. The measures split in two. Some ask whether the goods showed up as promised. The rest ask whether the data and labels were right. 

It can be helpful to think about the Perfect Order Program in terms of the below elements of a credit score: 

Fill Rate Original asks whether at least 

. On Time asks whether goods were picked up or received inside the assigned window. On Time Release and Supplier Performance Adherence cover shipments Target arranges. Both track whether freight was released and staged on the dates Target set. 

These fines are a percentage of the cost of goods sold on the units affected. The percentages have shifted more than once. Target 

, which is why guides published a few years apart quote different numbers for the same metric. The current rates live in the Supplier Performance Management Compliance Policy on Partners Online. 

Three metrics grade the paperwork rather than the shipment. 

Target updates the Vendor Compliance Policy every year. The 2026 policy, effective May 3, added two measures. Physical Casepack Accuracy compares the physical vendor case pack and store ship pack against the purchase order. An Item Attribute Audit at the distribution center checks dimensions and weights against the item record. These changes appear in the policy document on Partners Online, not in a public announcement. 

One detail there shapes the whole program. Measurement keys to the date Target receives the goods, not the date they shipped. An April shipment can be graded in May against a metric that did not exist when it left the dock. 

Where Does the Credit Score Comparison Break Down? 

. A FICO Score packs everything into one figure a borrower can watch move. Target reports each metric on its own in the Supplier Performance Management Dashboard and the Vendor Report Card. The whole picture is something a supplier assembles. 

. A late credit card payment lowers a score and shows up later as a worse rate. A late Target shipment produces a deduction on one purchase order in one week. 

. A credit score reads a rolling file. Target grades each order against its goal, then adds them up. 

Why Your Target Supplier Scorecard Is a Trend, Not a Snapshot 

The Vendor Report Card exists to show performance 

, not just the current week. That is where the credit score comparison earns its keep, because a trend answers questions a single violation can’t. 

A supplier with one ASN Availability violation in six months has an incident. A warehouse crew shipped before the ASN went out, or an EDI connection dropped. The cause is findable and the fix is narrow. 

Target reads early data the same way. When the new metrics arrived in May 2025, suppliers got a preview period in the dashboard showing how they would have scored, 

. A preview only makes sense if the retailer expects suppliers to spot a pattern before it costs anything. 

Six straight months of ASN violations is a different situation, and not just a worse one. A repeating violation means the process that makes ASNs is broken, rather than that one person slipped. Analysts who work deductions daily know the shape on sight. The same deduction code keeps coming back with new purchase order numbers behind it. 

The credit score parallel holds. One late payment in a long clean history reads as a bad month, while twelve read as a borrower whose income does not cover the bills. 

Improvement usually shows up as a narrowing gap, not a perfect month. A supplier who fixes ASN timing sees availability violations fall first. Accuracy violations linger until the item data behind them is corrected. Watching two metrics move at different speeds shows which fix landed and which is still pending. 

What Does a Strong Compliance Record Buy You? 

A good credit score buys measurable things, including 

. The supplier version is looser, because Target does not publish a list of benefits tied to compliance. 

Suppliers with strong records report fewer disputes to work and easier buyer conversations. Those are practitioner observations, not published Target policy. The clearest benefit lands in the deduction file. Every violation avoided is a deduction nobody has to dispute, and disputes cost hours even when they are won. 

How Do You Improve a Target Compliance Standing? 

A credit score improves through specific changes, not general effort. Compliance works the same way, and the fixes sit upstream of the metric rather than at it. 

Each of these is a data fix rather than a shipping fix, which is the usual surprise for a first-time Target supplier. 

It is the set of standards suppliers are measured against on every purchase order. The standards cover fill rate, shipment timing, advance ship notice availability and accuracy, and barcode quality. 

How often should a supplier check compliance performance? 

Weekly. The dashboard updates on its own, and a weekly look catches a repeating defect while it is still two or three incidents. 

Does one violation hurt a supplier’s standing with Target? 

One violation is one deduction on one purchase order. What shapes a standing is whether it repeats, because a repeat points to a broken process rather than a slip. 

Where do I find Target’s vendor compliance manual? 

Target’s vendor compliance manual and the related policy documents sit in Partners Online, the same portal that holds performance reports and dispute tools. 

The Supply Chain Source covers each piece of the program, including 

. We recommend starting with whichever metric is costing the most.  

Most of what the program measures comes down to whether order and shipping data leaves a supplier’s systems clean and on time. That is the layer 

 handles. Target sets its own thresholds and defines its own metrics, so no EDI system changes what gets measured. 

 publishes free articles, cheat sheets, and webinars for retail suppliers. 

This article describes Target’s compliance program as documented in September 2026. Rates and metric definitions change, and suppliers should double-check current figures in the Supplier Performance Management Compliance Policy on Partners Online before acting on them.

ACES and PIES Explained: A Primer on Automotive Catalog Data 

For automotive aftermarket suppliers, ACES and PIES data are more than industry terminology. They provide the common language suppliers, distributors, retailers, and marketplaces use to exchange information about automotive parts. 

, including descriptions, pricing, packaging, dimensions, and digital assets. 

Getting this data right matters more as suppliers sell through more channels. Bad or outdated data can keep products out of marketplace fitment tools, cause fitment errors and returns, or slow down retailer onboarding. 

 Note: Fitment refers the specific compatibility information that maps an auto part or accessory to the exact vehicle makes, models, years, submodels, engines, and physical positions it fits.

ACES and PIES are separate but related data standards, and both are maintained by 

Both standards use XML (extensible markup language) to structure information. That format lets the data move cleanly between systems. Both also rely on standardized databases the Auto Care Association maintains: 

Suppliers pull these values from the right databases to build standardized files. That gives trading partners one consistent way to read the same data. 

Why ACES and PIES Ecommerce Data Matter 

The value of ACES and PIES is consistency across all trading partners. 

An automotive aftermarket supplier might sell through several distributors, retailers, marketplaces, and ecommerce sites. Without common data standards, each trading partner could require information in a different format. Suppliers would then have to maintain multiple versions of their catalog or repeatedly map their data to each partner’s requirements. 

Articles

SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Overview

Articles