Podcasts about Procurement

In this episode of the Cannabis Accounting Podcast, host Raymond Guns sits down with Eric Halpern, founder of The Halp Center, to break down how cannabis retailers can buy smarter, turn inventory faster, and stop tying up cash in the vault.Eric started his career as a big box pharmacist and moved into Connecticut's medical marijuana program in 2019, when dispensaries had to be run by pharmacists. Over six and a half years at Fine Fettle, he went from buying for a single store to leading commercial strategy for 11 locations across Connecticut and Massachusetts.Eric breaks down:

Was wäre, wenn über jedem Menschen eine Zahl schweben würde – und ausgerechnet „Grün“ plötzlich auf 4.370 steht? Wir klären, warum ein völlig nutzloser Zähler vielleicht doch der wichtigste Kompass fürs Leben ist. Außerdem beweisen wir, dass Kuchenbacken ohne Budgetfreigabe, Procurement und eine eigene Backpulver-Abteilung eigentlich grob fahrlässig ist. Wer sonntags einfach so einen Kuchen auf den Tisch stellt, hat Projektmanagement offensichtlich nie ernst genommen.Außerdem in dieser Folge:Warum Tutanch-Tetanus Archäologen bis heute beschäftigtWelche Erinnerung selbst ein magischer Löschknopf nur bedingt retten könnteHYROX als endgültiger Belastungstest für Ehrgeiz und RadlerhosenWarum Elon Musk eigentlich nur die Schnellreise zum Mars freischalten willDer Schlüssel zur Kaverne und andere völlig normale NebenmissionenWie Candy Crush offenbar die Entwicklung von Nimm 3 ausgelöst hatWenn euch die Folge gefallen hat: Abonniert Maximal Durchschnitt und schickt die Episode an mindestens einen Menschen, dessen Leben dringend ein bisschen mehr Durchschnitt vertragen könnte.Maximal Durchschnitt auf YouTubemaximaldurchschnitt.de#################################Maximal Durchschnitt - Ein lustiger Podcast mit Basti und Sebastian.Zwei Trottel, die seit Schulzeiten gemeinsam Blödsinn machen - was macht da mehr Sinn, als ein lustiger Podcast?Wir beantworten Fragen von Zuschauern oder ihrem treuen Begleiter Alfons unter der Prämisse, dass die Antworten mit der Wahrheit möglichst wenig zu tun haben sollen.Maximal Durchschnitt ist ein Podcast für alle, dieImpro Comedy mögenauf absurden und nerdigen Humor stehenjede Folge überrascht werden wollennicht auf fundiertes Wissen hoffennicht immer nur Hack wollen

Dear Diary… "I use AI a lot to help scout out things or pose challenges and see where solutions are being marketed along those lines." Jeffrey Ostrander runs a nearly $5 billion business in one of the most dynamic supply markets on the planet. His team has left the starting block on agentic AI. What they are still deciding is how far into the race they want to run. That distinction runs through this whole conversation. Jeffrey talks about pilots that stumble, business cases that change daily, and a supply base of machine parts makers who are not sitting in front of a computer. Jeffrey is Head of North America Basin Supply Chain for SLB, the 100 year old company formerly known as Schlumberger. He returned to the same organization he started with 15 years ago, after time in global business services and other functions around the world. In this episode of The Agentic Procurement Diaries podcast, Philip Ideson and Jeffrey discuss: - Why sourcing and supplier performance sit in mirrored category structures, and how that builds a talent pipeline - The use cases already in play, from tail procurement to freight pay assurance and contract scouring - The "work-work balance" and why AI discovery has to be carved into paid time - Where he will not yet take the human out of the loop, and who is legally responsible when an agent makes the call Links: Jeff Ostrander on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffrey-ostrander/ Zycus on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/zycus/  AOP Provider Directory | Zycus: https://artofprocurement.com/provider-directory/zycusinc  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

A product can solve a real problem and still fail to make it through enterprise procurement.Greg Lawton, CEO at Nodes & Links, joins Andreas Munk Holm to explain why technical founders selling into large, risk-sensitive organisations need more than product-market fit. Greg argues that they also need company commercial fit: the processes, security, compliance and operational maturity required for a customer to actually buy from them. Drawing on his experience selling into defence and building Nodes & Links, Greg explains why complex enterprise sales is often about clearing milestones long before revenue starts to scale. That means understanding how decisions are really made across users, management, budget holders, IT, security and procurement. The conversation also explores why procurement friction can become a competitive moat, how to hire for relationship-led sales, why legitimacy matters more than lead volume and how Nodes & Links built auditable AI for environments where hallucinations are unacceptable.HighlightsWhy product-market fit is not enough for complex enterprise salesWhat company commercial fit means in practiceWhy procurement milestones can matter more than early revenueHow multiple stakeholders shape the enterprise buying processWhy procurement barriers can reduce competitionWhat Greg looks for in enterprise sales hiresWhy legitimacy matters more than a huge top of funnelHow Nodes & Links approaches AI where outputs need to be provably reliable-------We're pleased to be partnering with Luxembourg Venture Days on October 14–15 at Luxexpo The Box. Explore the agenda and register here: venture-days.lu-------Timestamps(00:00) Intro(02:45) Why product-market fit is only the first hurdle(05:00) Why enterprise sales is a milestone game, not a revenue game(06:20) What Nodes & Links does and why its AI must be auditable(09:40) Selling AI where hallucinations are unacceptable(12:10) How enterprise procurement really works(16:00) Why barriers to entry become barriers to competition(17:30) What selling to the Navy taught Greg about complex sales(20:10) Hiring for relationship-led enterprise sales(23:45) Why legitimacy matters more than lead volume(28:15) How the AI boom changed the sales conversation(32:50) Why pilot contracts can mean very little(34:35) What 744 years of project time saved looks like(36:35) Why complex enterprise software is still difficult to build in-house

Few words empty a meeting faster than “governance.” Mention it to non-procurement colleagues and their attention tends to wander. At the same time, governance determines how decisions get made across procurement, maintenance, and operations. In MRO-dependent environments, weak governance shows up quickly as duplicate orders, wrong or missing parts, strained supplier relationships, and unplanned downtime. In this episode of The Sourcing Hero podcast, Host Kelly Barner welcomes Vernetta Tyler. Vernetta is the founder of NINET9 Solutions and has eight years of experience across operations, maintenance, reliability, and supply chain. Vernetta shares her perspective on why procurement governance is about how decisions are made, not just the rules written on paper: Why governance is especially critical in MRO environments, and the early signs that it may be starting to drift How to guide decisions with clear boundaries without restricting the teams who keep operations running How AI is likely to change compliance and anomaly detection while keeping human judgment at the center   Links: Vernetta Tyler on LinkedIn

In this episode, Donna and Tom sit down with Lee Beard to unpack key lessons from an exceptional 35-year career spanning leadership roles at Dell, Nike, Nordstrom, and the Coca-Cola system. Lee details what it takes to build agile, customer-centric transportation networks, navigate major shifts toward direct-to-consumer and omni-channel retail, and balance speed with precision. He addresses cutting through tech hype by focusing on high-leverage use cases and shares why professional engagement through organizations like CSCMP remains a powerful career catalyst. Finally, Lee reflects on his transition into academia to mentor the next generation of supply chain leaders. Takeaways: Managing rapid scale and omni-channel fulfillment across global retail and beverage networks Navigating supply chain technology by avoiding vendor hype and running targeted pilot programs The strategic value of active industry networking and external engagement Core leadership philosophies, career advice, and keeping priorities balanced over a long career Stay connected with CSCR on LinkedIn (Center for Supply Chain Research) and Instagram (@pennstatesupplychain), and be sure to follow us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you are tuning into Unpacked: Insights hosted by the Penn State Smeal Center for Supply Chain Research™. Thank you for joining us!  Visit our website: https://www.smeal.psu.edu/cscr  Guest Bio: Lee Beard is a customer-focused operations executive with over 30 years of experience and extensive industry knowledge in transportation, logistics, and supply chain management. He most recently served as SVP, Logistics for Swire Coca-Cola, one of the five largest Coca-Cola bottlers in the world. Over three years, Lee led a sweeping operational transformation of Swire's distribution centers, delivery operations, transportation, and fleet management, along with cold drink equipment service and remanufacturing. Prior to joining Swire CCUSA, Lee was at Nordstrom where he was responsible for all aspects of transportation across the US and Canada, including international ocean and air freight, domestic inbound, store delivery networks, e-commerce customer shipments and returns. Lee also led global transportation at Nike where he and his team developed critical transportation capabilities to power their “Consumer Direct Offense” – a transformational e-commerce strategy to serve consumers personally at scale around the world. Before Nike, Lee spent ten years in the Coca-Cola System in key transportation, logistics, and procurement leadership roles and served as a key member of the executive startup team for a logistics-focused joint venture between The Coca-Cola Company and its largest US bottler. He also worked at Dell, Inc. for six years in various manufacturing, logistics, and global strategy roles. At Dell, Lee was a member of a small team that designed a ground-breaking planning and replenishment methodology for Dell's assembly factories that was implemented globally and earned a patent for the company (US7577577). Serving the supply chain and logistics profession has long been a passion for Lee. He has been active in CSCMP (Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) for many years, serving on the organization's Board of Directors, as a Board officer, and Board Chair in 2022. He also served CSCMP as past chair of the Annual Conference Planning Committee and past member of their Research Strategies Committee. Lee also serves on the Board for the Transportation & Supply Chain Institute at the University of Denver and is a member of the editorial board for the Journal of Supply Chain Management, Logistics, and Procurement. He enjoys teaching and mentoring those pursuing careers in supply chain and logistics and is a frequent guest speaker in supply chain programs. Lee earned a bachelor's in industrial engineering and a master of science in management from the Georgia Institute of Technology and is currently pursuing his doctorate in business administration at the University of Florida. He and his wife Claire reside in Draper, Utah.

Key TopicsRole and importance of a green coffee buyerManaging costs and budgets effectivelyBuilding relationships with suppliers and account managersUnderstanding market dynamics and pricing cyclesSetting up systems for real-time inventory and cost trackingThe mindset of a successful buyer: patience and precisionInitial steps: documentation, meetings, and relationship buildingLong-term strategies for cost savings and quality control Part of The Covoya Coffee Podcasting Network TAKE OUR LISTENER SURVEY Visit and Explore Covoya!

Inertia is one of the most powerful forces slowing sales in Japan. The buyer may already have a regular supplier. Or we may be introducing a solution they have never used before. In either case, buying from us requires change on their side. And in many Japanese buying situations, change is viewed first as risk, not opportunity. Doing nothing is easy. Staying with the existing supplier is easy. Changing systems, processes, vendors, internal responsibilities, budgets or routines is much harder. That is why salespeople in Japan need to stop thinking only about getting the first deal done. A better mindset is to think about the re-order. If we concentrate only on winning the initial sale, the slow pace and internal obstacles can become enormously frustrating. If we concentrate on creating a relationship that will generate repeated business, we are more likely to do the patient work required to reduce friction and make the first purchase successful. Why is buyer inertia such a major issue in Japanese sales? Buyer inertia is powerful in Japan because remaining with the familiar option usually feels safer than introducing change. The salesperson therefore has to overcome not only competitors, but also the buyer's preference for avoiding unnecessary risk. If the client already has a supplier, switching to us means disrupting an established arrangement. Someone has to approve the change. Someone may have to explain why the existing supplier is no longer sufficient. Processes may need to change. People may need to learn something new. Other divisions may be affected. If our solution is completely new, the uncertainty becomes even greater because the buyer has no internal history to rely on. The current situation may not be ideal, but at least it is known. That is a powerful psychological advantage. This is why the familiar expression, "better the Devil you know than the Angel you don't", applies particularly well to sales. We are the Angel they don't know. Our job is therefore not merely to prove that our solution is better. We have to make changing to our solution feel manageable, practical and sufficiently low risk. Do now: Before your next proposal, ask yourself: "What changes will the buyer have to make internally if they say yes to us?" Why can trying to speed up a Japanese sales process actually slow it down? Speed is not always interpreted positively in Japanese B2B sales. If the buyer believes a decision is being rushed before all risks have been examined, moving quickly can make the proposal feel more dangerous rather than more attractive. Salespeople naturally want momentum. We have targets. We have forecasts. We have reporting deadlines. We want the client to make the decision now. The buyer does not care about our schedule. As I remind myself, the buyer in Japan is never on your schedule. The buyer is concerned with what happens inside their organisation after they make the purchase. The salesperson may be talking to one section, but the consequences of that buying decision can spread across multiple divisions. Operations may be affected. Finance may need to alter payment arrangements. IT may have integration issues. Procurement may have procedures to follow. Managers may need to explain the change to employees. The faster we push, the more uncomfortable the buyer may become if those internal questions have not been resolved. Do now: Instead of asking, "How can I make them decide faster?", ask, "What is making this decision difficult to progress?" How can salespeople identify the internal stakeholders creating friction? The salesperson needs to use the client contact to map which sections will be affected by the change and which stakeholders are likely to support or resist the proposal. This is not always easy. We may never meet the people in the other sections. We may never hear their objections directly. Our contact therefore becomes enormously important. We need to ask them for the lay of the land inside their organisation. One useful question is: "I really appreciate all of your guidance and I understand that buying from us would be a new thing inside the company. I am sure there are many sections which would be directly impacted by making this change and based on your expert knowledge of the organisation, who would you say would be those most affected?" Then stop talking. This is important. Salespeople often ruin good questions because they become uncomfortable with silence and start talking again. Do not dilute the power of the question. Ask it. Then shut up. Give the buyer time to think. Their answer starts giving us a map of the internal decision-making landscape. Do now: Identify the sections most affected by the purchase, not just the people formally approving it. What should salespeople ask about each stakeholder's concerns? Once the affected sections have been identified, the salesperson should explore what each group is worried about and what information could reduce those concerns. Suppose the buyer mentions that Section ABC will be heavily affected. Do not stop there. We need to understand what ABC is likely to worry about. We can say: "It is natural for the key sections you have nominated to take this change seriously and for them to investigate all angles involved. Often I have found that we have information which may not be known to these sections, which would change their perception of the ease of making the change. What would you say would be the major concerns of the ABC section?" Again, stop talking. Let them answer. Notice the framing. We are not accusing ABC of being negative. We are recognising that careful investigation is natural and legitimate. That makes it easier for our contact to discuss resistance without appearing disloyal to colleagues. This is particularly important in Japan, where openly criticising another department can be uncomfortable. Do now: For each important stakeholder, ask: "What would make this change difficult from their point of view?" Why do salespeople need to probe two or three levels deeper? The first answer is often not the real obstacle. Salespeople need to keep probing because the most useful information frequently emerges only after the buyer has had time to think more deeply. Suppose our contact tells us ABC Section has one major concern. Good. Now keep going. Say: "Thank you for mentioning that. Apart from this concern, can you think of other major hesitations which we may need to work on solving for them?" This second or third level is often where the useful information appears. The first response may simply be whatever came immediately to mind. When we give the buyer more time to consider the issue, they can think through the internal consequences more carefully. Another concern appears. Then another. Now we are getting somewhere. We should repeat this process for all of the key divisions likely to be affected. By the end of the conversation, we are no longer simply selling a product or service. We are beginning to understand the internal mechanics of making the purchase possible. Do now: Never assume the first objection is the only objection. Ask, "Apart from that, what else might make this difficult?" How can sellers reduce friction once they understand the obstacles? Once friction points are visible, the salesperson should redesign the implementation so the buyer can change with less risk, less disruption and less internal resistance. This is where professional selling really begins. Perhaps we need to slow the process down. Maybe the client needs more time to prepare internally. Perhaps we should reduce the scope of the initial deal and introduce additional elements later. Maybe the payment schedule needs to fit the client's budgeting cycle or current cash-flow situation. Perhaps the buyer needs a pilot programme before they feel comfortable committing to a larger rollout. A pilot can be particularly powerful. It creates a low-risk opportunity for the client to see how the solution works. They can understand what internal adjustments are required. They can identify problems while the scale is still manageable. Once the solution is proven, increasing the size or frequency of the delivery becomes easier. The aim is not to force the buyer through their resistance. The aim is to remove the causes of resistance wherever we can. Do now: Look at every friction point and ask: "Can we remove it, reduce it, delay it or test it on a smaller scale?" Why should salespeople in Japan sell for the re-order rather than the first order? The real objective is not merely to win one transaction. It is to create a first experience that makes the second purchase easier, faster and more natural. This mindset changes how we behave. If all we want is the initial order, we may push too hard. We may promise too much. We may force the buyer to make changes faster than their organisation can comfortably absorb them. That may win the first sale and destroy the chance of the second. If we think instead about the re-order, patience becomes logical. We want the first implementation to work. We want the client's internal stakeholders to feel comfortable. We want those who supported the purchase to look good. We want the organisation to say: "That worked. Let's do it again." That is when the relationship becomes much more valuable. The first sale often requires enormous energy because we are unknown. Once the buyer has experienced successful delivery, trust grows and resistance falls. That is the point. Do now: Design the first transaction so that success naturally leads to the next one. How should professional salespeople reduce sales friction in Japan? There are no shortcuts. We need to understand what the buyer must go through internally to implement what we are proposing. That requires intelligent, carefully constructed questions. We need to identify who will be affected. We need to discover who is supportive and who is resistant. We need to understand each stakeholder's concerns. We need to keep probing beyond the first answer. Then we need to adjust the deal. Maybe we slow down. Maybe we simplify. Maybe we change the payment schedule. Maybe we begin with a pilot. Maybe we remove parts of the proposal and add them back later. The objective is to make the change as friction-free as possible. We are all creatures of habit. The buyer already knows the existing supplier, process or solution. They do not know us. That means we have to make the unfamiliar feel safe. Do that well and the first order becomes possible. Do it extremely well and the re-orders become easier. That is the real objective of professional selling in Japan. Author bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie One Carnegie Award (2018 and 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver programmes globally across leadership, communication, sales and presentations, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including the best-sellers Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery and Japan Presentations Mastery, as well as Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery and Japan's Top Business Interviews for executives and professionals seeking practical strategies for succeeding in Japan.

Supply chain planning is changing fast, but technology is only part of the story. As AI capabilities expand, procurement becomes more strategic, and planners face an accelerating pace of change, organizations must determine how to embrace innovation without losing sight of the people who make supply chains work.In this episode of Supply Chain Today and Tomorrow, Scott Luton sits down with Mike Griswold, Vice President Analyst at Gartner, to explore some of the biggest trends shaping supply chain planning and leadership. Mike breaks down the top barriers preventing planners from performing at their best, including the pace of change, digital skills gaps, and the continued need for strong communication and collaboration skills. They also discuss the debate around slowing AI development, the emerging role of AI agents, procurement's growing strategic influence, and how automation can give employees valuable time back. Plus, Mike shares what makes the Gartner Supply Chain Planning Summit a valuable opportunity for planning professionals.Key TakeawaysSupply chain planners remain essential. Technology may change how planning gets done, but organizations continue to invest in both planning technology and the people responsible for making critical decisions.Change management is becoming even more important. Leaders need to clearly communicate how AI will affect planning roles and help employees understand where they fit into the future of the organization.Soft skills still matter in an AI-powered workplace. AI can help teams arrive at an answer, but influencing, collaboration, conflict management, communication, and consensus-building remain human responsibilities.AI agents may reshape supply chain teams. Future planning organizations could include both human planners and AI agents, making governance, oversight, and human-machine collaboration increasingly important.Procurement is becoming more strategic. Procurement's influence across the broader supply chain continues to grow while AI creates opportunities to automate repetitive and transactional activities.Automation should give people time back. Removing repetitive work allows employees to spend more time applying expertise, solving problems, being creative, and performing higher-value work.The future of supply chain isn't simply about adopting more technology; it's about figuring out how people and technology can work together more effectively. Tune in to hear Scott and Mike unpack practical ways leaders can support planners, approach AI thoughtfully, rethink repetitive work, and prepare their organizations for what's coming next.Additional Links & Resources:Connect with Mike: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-griswold-6a68922/Learn more about Gartner: www.gartner.comUpcoming Live Programming: https://supplychainnow.com/upcoming-live-programming/Supply Chain Now Resource Hub: https://supplychainnow.com/resource-hub/Learn more about our hosts: https://supplychainnow.com/aboutLearn more about Supply Chain Now: https://supplychainnow.comWatch and listen to more Supply Chain Now episodes here: https://supplychainnow.com/program/supply-chain-now Subscribe to Supply Chain Now on your favorite platform: https://supplychainnow.com/join Work with us! Download Supply Chain Now's NEW Media Kit: https://bit.ly/3XH6OVkLearn more about Blue Yonder Cognitive Solutions: http://blueyonder.com/cognitiveWEBINAR- Demand Volatility Isn't a Forecasting Problem: How One FMCG Distributor Released Capacity Without Capital: https://bit.ly/4r94YM6WEBINAR- You Can't Manage What You Can't See: Using Visibility, KPIs, and AI to Optimize Logistics Operations: https://bit.ly/4ql6iemWEBINAR- The Four Eras of Freight Audit: How we got here, and why the Control Era (finally) changes everything: https://bit.ly/4yVXPBxWEBINAR- The Real ROI of AI Analytics in the Supply Chain: Better Answers When Everyone Starts Asking: https://bit.ly/3TpCX6uWEBINAR- How to Stop Losing Margin After a Package Ships: https://bit.ly/4An41UxWEBINAR- Rethinking the Supply Chain Management Classroom: https://bit.ly/4xJIkM2This episode was hosted by Scott Luton and produced by Trisha Cordes, Joshua Miranda, and Amanda Luton. For additional information, please visit our dedicated episode page at: https://supplychainnow.com/think-different-planning-challenges-ai-procurement-leadership-1640 The content in this episode, including all audio, videos, visuals, and graphics, is the property of Supply Chain Now and is protected by copyright law. Unauthorized use, reproduction, distribution, modification, or re-uploading of this content in any form is strictly prohibited without explicit written permission from Supply Chain Now.For licensing inquiries or permissions, please contact us at production@supplychainnow.com© 2026 Supply Chain Now. All rights reserved. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

"Do we have a supply chain that we are building that is going to allow us to navigate and be agile enough, no matter what the world continues to throw at us?" - Frank Mckay, Chief Supply Chain & Procurement Officer, Jabil Procurement and supply chain have traditionally operated as distinct functions, but growing complexity, new technology, and rising expectations around resilience are making that separation increasingly difficult to maintain. In this episode, Philip Ideson welcomes back Frank Mckay, Chief Supply Chain & Procurement Officer at Jabil, to discuss how closer alignment between procurement and supply chain can create a stronger foundation for growth, resilience, and innovation. Frank shares how Jabil has brought the two functions together around technology and a common source of truth, while using AI to enrich roles, anticipate shortages, and create new capabilities. He also explains how procurement's measures of success have expanded beyond cost reduction to include balance sheet health, resilience, and revenue generation. In this episode, Frank discusses how to: -Apply AI to enrich roles and proactively manage risk -Balance AI experimentation with appropriate governance -Measure procurement value beyond cost reduction -Build resilience into procurement and supply chain strategy   Links: Frank Mckay on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-mckay-1297a14/  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

Christian; Follower of GOD Servant of CHRIST       Patreon https://bit.ly/3jcLDuZBio:Combat Veteran; U.S. Marine Corps Urban Warfare Instructor;       S.R.T. Commander Active Shooter Response Team Law Enforcement Los Angeles Police (L.A.P.D.) Police Officer / Fugitive RecoveryF.B.I. Instructor N.R.A Instructor Competition Shooter; Multi Time State Rifle Pistol Champion Hunting; Life Long Hunter Professional Hunter and Guide Private Security Contractor; Several Agencies,  Current.Patreon https://bit.ly/3jcLDuZBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gunfighter-life-survival-guns-ammo-hunting-defense-tactics--4187306/support.Have a Blessed Day 

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 179 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's Interview guest is Peter Berg. If you don't know Peter, he is the Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and is also serving as the VPP president. We talk about the industry association of in-house practitioners VPP, politics, patent strategy at Infineon, litigation ready patents, NPEs, acquisitions, the German emloyees invention act and many more things. So stay with us for this very interesting interview. Before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The USPTO has issued its first AI-related disciplinary action, published on August 27, 2026 in In re Brian E. Mitchell (Proceeding No. D2026-16) before the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. The underlying settlement was signed by the attorney on July 20, 2026 and by the OED Director on July 21, 2026, with final approval given on July 27, 2026 by Tricia Choe on behalf of USPTO Director John A. Squires. The action resulted in a public reprimand against California patent attorney Brian E. Mitchell after a generative AI tool produced a claim comparison chart containing fabricated citations to the patent’s internal file history. The case underscores that AI-generated hallucinations must be verified by a human before filing. InterDigital has escalated its patent dispute with Disney across three fronts within a month. On August 25, 2026, InterDigital filed two new actions at the Unified Patent Court: a preliminary injunction request at the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_3044/2026) and a main infringement action at the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_3043/2026), covering Germany, France and the Netherlands. Both target Disney+ Premium’s switch to the VP9 video codec, which InterDigital says still infringes patent EP 2 465 265, a patent the Mannheim division had already found valid and infringed in an earlier ruling that also branded Disney an unwilling licensee; the Düsseldorf action adds a second patent, EP 2 605 473, covering the Up Next continue-watching feature. On September 2, 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted InterDigital an injunction against Disney covering Germany and the Netherlands over a separate patent protecting seamless playback continuation when switching between devices, upholding the patent’s validity in the same ruling. It was InterDigital’s third UPC injunction against Disney. Then, on September 15, 2026, InterDigital filed a damages claim for EUR 101.7 million against Disney at the Munich Regional Court I (case no. 7 O 8870/26), based on a November 2025 finding that Disney+ infringes InterDigital’s HDR video patent EP 2 132 923; the claim also covers viewers in 19 European countries served through a Frankfurt-based server location. For companies relying on codec or connectivity technology, the dispute is a reminder that switching to a different standard does not automatically avoid infringement if the asserted patent is drafted broadly enough. The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled on September 3, 2026 in G 1/25 that a patent description only needs to be amended to match amended claims if a discrepancy between the two causes a requirement of the EPC, such as clarity, novelty or inventive step, not to be met. The EPO’s Board of Appeal 3.3.08 fully revoked Moderna’s key mRNA patent EP 3 590 949 following a two-day hearing that concluded in mid-September 2026, on the grounds that the claimed subject matter extended beyond the original application. The revocation removes the basis for Moderna’s earlier wins against BioNTech and Pfizer in Düsseldorf and London. On September 15, 2026, US sportswear maker New Balance filed a trademark suit against Decathlon’s US units, Decathlon America LLC and Decathlon USA LLC, in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (case no. 1:26-cv-14235). New Balance argues that the K logo on its Kiprun running shoe line, when mirrored, reads unmistakably as an N and imitates the N mark it has used for roughly 50 years, claiming post-sale confusion. On September 8, 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in Case C-298/23, Inter IKEA Systems v Vrijheidsfonds, on a referral from the Brussels Enterprise Court, that the owner of a well-known trademark can prohibit its use by a political party unless the party sets out the specific reasons why its freedom of expression outweighs the trademark owner’s interests. The case arose from the Vlaams Belang party’s 2022 campaign promoting a migration plan styled as IKEA assembly instructions. And now for the interview with Peter Berg! In this episode of IP Fridays I talk with Peter Berg. He is Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and President of VPP, the German association for in house IP professionals, since May 2025. Berg is an electrical engineer by training and leads a team at Infineon that manages a portfolio of more than 12,000 patent families, while the company simultaneously enforces its rights offensively in Germany, the US and China. That combination of hands on portfolio work and association leadership makes him one of the rare guests who can speak to both the operational detail of one of Europe’s largest patent portfolios and the political side of Germany’s IP landscape. The guest: Peter Berg and the VPP Peter Berg is an electrical engineer who became Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and, since May 2025, President of the VPP, the association representing in house patent professionals in Germany. His team manages a portfolio of more than 12,000 patent families while running an offensive enforcement program across Germany, the US and China. That mix of operational and political experience is exactly why I wanted him on the podcast. Germany’s national IP strategy: more than a promise on paper I asked Berg what has become of the national IP strategy promised in Germany’s coalition agreement, and what happens if it does not materialize during this legislative term. His answer was clear. The question is no longer whether the strategy will arrive, only how comprehensive it turns out to be. If it falls short of what industry needs, the profession will simply push for adjustments afterward. Berg names three levels that need attention. First, society as a whole, from kindergarten to retirement, needs to understand that intellectual property underpins our prosperity rather than being a line item in the accounts. Second, academia and professional education. Third, startups and the broader Mittelstand, where well funded structures are still missing. The German Patent and Trademark Office has an educational mandate but far too small a budget for it, and the regional patent information centers are underfunded as well. Berg makes a point that is easy to miss from outside Germany: the patent office reports to the Ministry of Justice rather than to an innovation focused ministry, even though its real purpose is to strengthen the economy. That three ministries, research, economy and justice, are now working on the strategy together strikes him as genuine progress. Litigation ready patents: how Infineon manages 12,000 patent families Infineon has roughly tripled its turnover since 2017 while keeping portfolio size largely stable. The answer, Berg says, is quality over quantity. Inventors pitch their ideas to a panel of senior technical experts and patent attorneys, and the process does not stop there. The draft itself is reviewed by multiple stakeholders, and once the notice of allowance arrives and the patent is granted, it goes through another review. The criteria stay consistent throughout: technology assessment, market size, detectability, circumventability and fit with Infineon’s own roadmap. Internal discipline alone does not make a patent litigation ready, though. That requires real experience with conflict, and most of that experience comes from the defensive side, where Infineon has plenty of practice finding weaknesses in patents asserted against it. Being on the offensive, Berg says, is a different level of learning entirely, whether in court or in licensing negotiations where the other side is not sure it would get a fair outcome if the case went to trial. In practice this also means systematic pruning. Internally Infineon calls the relevant phases US8 and US12, the years when annuity costs peak in the US portfolio, by far the most expensive part of the estate. Berg says his team knows every one of the more than 12,000 patent families in detail, and offensive enforcement is focused on the markets that matter most for electronic products: Germany, the US and China. An injunction at a trade show: national courts versus the UPC One concrete trigger for this conversation was an ex parte preliminary injunction Infineon obtained at a German trade show, without the defendant having filed a protective letter in advance. For Berg, enforcement at trade fairs is nothing new, it has been part of the playbook for years, now extended to venues outside Europe that Western companies have used less often in the past. His view on the UPC is nuanced. He credits the court with a strong start, good management and judges selected for quality rather than politics, and praises the body of case law it has built in a little over three years. On the other hand, some member states are still missing, a comprehensive body of case law takes time to develop, and costs do not fit every business case, especially where achievable damages barely justify the expense. Infineon in any case validates most European patents in only a handful of countries rather than dozens, so the practical difference between national and UPC enforcement is smaller than it might seem. For smaller cases the option to opt out and litigate nationally alongside UPC rights remains important, even though systematically double patenting is not something Infineon pursues for cost reasons. Four systems at once: coordinating cross border enforcement Infineon’s legal and patent departments have grown together over 25 years into a fully integrated international organization, with teams in Europe, North America and several Asian countries that, by Berg’s account, communicate on close to a weekly basis. Add to that a strong network of outside counsel. The commitment to management is not to shy away from any jurisdiction where the need arises. Berg is careful that patent attorneys do not spend their entire careers doing only litigation or only prosecution. Attorneys who rotate into a litigation team bring that experience back into their regular business support afterward, and that cycle in turn improves the quality of new filings. Litigation has become part of daily business, but never something a team slides into unprepared. Going on the offensive against a competitor requires planning several steps ahead. IP due diligence in practice: the Marvell Brightlane deal I found Berg’s answer on the Marvell Brightlane acquisition, Infineon’s 2.5 billion dollar deal for Marvell’s automotive Ethernet business that closed in August 2025, particularly revealing. In the semiconductor industry, he explains, IP is rarely primarily the patent portfolio. What matters more are frozen technologies and so called IP blocks, reusable design blocks that enable fast product development. Infineon almost never acquires a company because of its patents. Being a large, established player, its own portfolio is usually broad enough to secure a new technical area against incumbent competitors. The real work starts after signing. It means listening without being pushy, understanding the new colleagues’ processes and tools before deciding how to integrate the portfolio. Since none of Marvell’s IP staff joined Infineon in this deal, the team had to build up portfolio expertise using the acquired engineers and set up an operational patent committee, then plan which areas of the portfolio were already strong and where investment was still needed. The faster that integration decision gets made, Berg says, the better, because product development can never be allowed to stall because of an acquisition. The Cypress lesson: NPE exposure from legacy portfolios One risk many companies underestimate in acquisitions is patents an acquired business sold to a non practicing entity, or NPE, before the deal closed. That happened with Cypress Semiconductor in 2016, after its merger with Spansion left it with an oversized portfolio it did not need. Cypress sold around 2,000 patents to the NPE organization IP Value, and only a few years later Infineon acquired Cypress. Because the sale included a retained license for Cypress’s own business, Berg sees no exposure for Infineon from those specific patents today. The broader issue of NPE enforcement, though, remains real. Realistically there are many dozens of new cases a month, often directed at customers or the wider ecosystem rather than at chipmakers directly. Even when Infineon is not the target, it has to support its customers whenever its own technology is implicated. For the industry as a whole this consumes a great deal of resources without moving innovation forward, a point that comes up especially often at this time of year in Munich, when IP practitioners from around the world gather for meetings. Post quantum cryptography: patent density ahead of standardization In December 2024 Infineon became the first company to achieve a CC EAL6 certification in post quantum cryptography, one of the highest security certifications available. Berg describes two angles to the work. On one side, Infineon develops its own chipsets to enable quantum computing itself, already a real business rather than pure research. On the other side, customers across Infineon’s application fields need to be prepared for what he calls quantum day, the point at which powerful quantum computers become available, including to bad actors. Because that day may only be three to five years away, infrastructure needs to be built now so it can handle new cryptographic approaches. On standard essentiality he is measured rather than evasive. There are certainly patents in this field from Infineon and others, but security standards have historically leaned toward royalty free licensing rather than the large patent clusters seen in cellular communication from 2G through 5G. Whether that pattern repeats for post quantum cryptography, he cannot say, but Infineon is preparing for either outcome. Germany’s Employee Invention Act: opportunity or burden Asked whether Germany’s Employee Invention Act is an opportunity or a burden for the country’s innovation ecosystem, Berg does not hold back. With more than 30 years of experience, he estimates that 99 percent of all inventions are simply the regular work product of engineers in R&D, requiring no extra incentive at all. In countries without an equivalent law, employees are demonstrably just as innovative and just as willing to share their inventions with the company. His core objection is that invention does not equal innovation. Procurement, production, quality management and many other functions all contribute to a product’s success, not just the named inventors. That the inventor alone receives extra compensation while everyone else does not strikes Berg as unfair, especially since Infineon already rewards its top engineers appropriately regardless of statutory requirements. He calls the law a bureaucratic nightmare that should be abolished or at least radically simplified. Smaller organizations, he notes, often just ignore it or implement it badly, and every company Infineon has acquired with German operations has come with its own legacy mess to clean up. Artificial intelligence in day to day patent work at Infineon On AI, Berg describes three layers. The first is established tools: patent search, translation between the team’s main working languages, and, for about two years now, drafting replies to office actions. As with any tool, the benefit only shows up with repeated use at real volume, which is why Infineon works deliberately with outside counsel to broaden adoption across the team. The second layer is ongoing testing of new tools, limited mainly by the time available to evaluate them. The third is everyday office use. Since spring 2025, everyone from paralegals to attorneys has been able to use AI tools broadly within a secure environment. The bar stays the same throughout: if AI output is not at least as good as an attorney’s prior work, it is not worth using, or the cleanup afterward eats up any time saved. Where it does work, responses to standardization proposals, for instance, can be produced far faster. One question Berg expects to face next year, without yet having an answer: how should efficiency gains be split between the company and outside counsel once both sides benefit from AI? Three messages for the IP community I closed by asking Berg for the most important messages he would want to give our listeners, mostly IP professionals in companies and law firms. His first message: think about IP strategy from the end, starting with what needs to be asserted against whom and for what purpose in ten or twenty years, rather than letting today’s deadlines dictate everything. Only that kind of multi year plan, combined with a sound cost benefit ratio, produces genuinely litigation ready patents. His second message is again about artificial intelligence: anyone who has not started training with it yet risks missing the wave, and this is not a skill built overnight. His third message is aimed at anyone not yet connected to peers in the profession: use the associations and networks that already exist to build that exchange, a thought that ties neatly back to the VPP, where our conversation began. And here is the full transcript: Peter Berg: Hi, I’m Peter Berg, Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and President of VPP, the Association of In-house Patent Practitioners in Germany. And you are listening to IP Fridays. Rolf Claessen: Today’s interview guest is Peter Berg. If you don’t know Peter, he is an electrical engineer by training and is the Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and also serving as the VPP president. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Peter Berg: My pleasure. Rolf Claessen: So first I want to talk about VPP. You succeeded Beat Weibel from Siemens as VPP president in May 2024 and have publicly called for Germany to finally deliver on the coalition agreement promise of the national IP strategy. So politics, what are the two or three most concrete things that strategy must contain? What happens if it doesn’t get done in this legislative period? Peter Berg: First of all, I think I need to correct you. It was May 2025, so not that long as a standing president. But if you mention national IP strategy, national means here for Germany. I think the question isn’t anymore whether or what happens if we don’t get that strategy. I think that is now on its way. The question is rather how good and comprehensive the national IP strategy will be, and if it’s just not enough from an industry perspective, I would say then we adjust afterwards. Of course, there is a big paper out from the BDI, the German Industry Association, published in 2024, and I need to focus on something which is really close to my heart. If you ask me the main content it should have, it is first of all better IP education, and I see there are kind of three levels. One is really society as such, so each and everybody from kindergarten to retirees, we need to acknowledge in the knowledge society that IP is central for our well-being. We have to respect the IP of others. We have to be proud to create IP, not just treat it as an entry in the accounts. Yeah, society at large. The second level is really academia and education in our professional environment. And finally, life is difficult for startups, people who want to create a new company, and small and medium-sized enterprises. There is good stuff out there. The German Patent and Trademark Office has a mandate to educate, but a very small budget to do so. In a federal country like Germany, there are local support systems, be it the chambers of commerce or the patent information centers. The structure is there, but it’s underfinanced, and Germany has to gear up on that one. So besides IP education, I believe solid national IP institutions are key. This is also a funding issue, be it headcount or technology. Think of the German Patent and Trademark Office, think of the courts, be it on the infringement side or the nullity side, so the Federal Patent Court. We need to back up nationally the European institutions, since we believe not every case is worth taking to the UPC, so for smaller cases we need a good national system as a backup. And government needs to have that in mind and not rely too much on European institutions alone. Finally, facilitate the IP transfer from universities and research institutions into industry. Right now it’s all about startups, et cetera, but that kind of IP transfer starts first of all with people leaving university, leaving those research institutions and joining industry, be it as staff or through research contracts. And finally, of course, startups are the area where Germany needs to catch up in particular. Perhaps I need to add for non-German listeners, there is a particularity in Germany in that the IP institutions, like the Patent and Trademark Office, report into the Ministry of Justice, although it’s an instrument for thriving innovation and building a solid economy. So it’s right now a totally new thing for this country that three ministries, research, economy and justice, are working together on this national IP strategy, with only recently some good progress. Rolf Claessen: You’ve said publicly that Infineon’s primary focus is patents that provide clear competitive advantages, and that for you it’s about litigation-ready patents. That’s a very specific phrase. How do you define it operationally, and how has the pruning of your more than 12,000-family portfolio changed in the last two years? Peter Berg: Yeah, I think that’s a process which lasted much more than two years, and it’s never over. This is work in progress. Thinking back to 2017, I joined Infineon, and the company has developed very nicely since. I think we roughly tripled turnover but kept the portfolio size roughly stable, despite acquisitions, despite that growth, also in R&D, et cetera. We’ve even been able to shrink costs since then, and I believe we’ve achieved our strategic goals, now with a good, or let’s say not yet good enough, cost-benefit ratio. And the answer to that equation is quality. Now, we as patent practitioners might call it differently, but at the end it comes down to the fact that, most likely for all companies and for practitioners who support companies in private practice, you need a collaboration platform. That means for Infineon, the inventors are key. They are involved in decision-making, so they pitch their invention to senior technical experts, my team members, and patent attorneys, and the quality of that expert panel makes a big difference. Then come repetitive reviews, not just once the decision to file is taken, but the draft itself is also reviewed by multiple stakeholders. Then we get the notice of allowance, the patent is granted, another review, and later on we try to apply consistent criteria: what’s the technology assessment, what’s the market size, is it detectable, is it easy to circumvent, et cetera, and does it fit with our own roadmap. And of course it would be nice if you could easily compare it with a competitor’s roadmap, or take the time to speculate on certain market changes which might be disruptive. And I believe if you apply that consistently over a sufficiently long period, you get patents you could call litigation-grade or litigation-ready. What is then missing, though, is real experience with conflicts against competitors and how the courts look at that. So the truth comes out once you go to court. On the defensive side, of course, we have tons of experience trying to find weaknesses in patents being asserted against Infineon, et cetera. But I think it’s another level of learning to be on the offensive, and that might play out in court, but it might also play out in licensing negotiations, where the other side is sufficiently unsure whether they would get an outcome they believe would be fair if they went to court with those patents. You asked me about the pruning of all this. So what is our approach there? There is a kind of forced pruning rate which we believe is necessary, to make it mandatory for everybody to identify the weakest patents in the respective portfolios. We focus on the years where costs are highest, what we internally call US8 and US12, since a big chunk of money needs to be spent on annuity payments for the US portfolio, which is the dominant one, and for the rest of the world it’s rather towards the end of the patents’ lifecycle. Now, having a good team, people who really like the technology and stay in charge for a long time, I could proudly say that my team knows every one of those 12,000 patent families well, and not just on the German or the US side, but really focuses on the jurisdictions with the biggest markets for electronic products. And there we see offensive litigation as a good choice, and that is Germany, the US and China. Rolf Claessen: Yes, talking about patent quality is really a hot topic right now, especially in industry and at the EPO, I guess, but that’s a topic for a different hour, probably. But talking about litigation-ready patents, you recently obtained possibly the first ex parte preliminary injunction at a German trade show in recent history, without a protective writ having been filed by the defendant. What does that show about your view on German national courts versus the UPC for this kind of enforcement? Peter Berg: I mean, first of all, litigation is not an end in itself, and in the markets a semiconductor company like Infineon operates in, a product might implement potentially hundreds or thousands of patents. So litigation itself doesn’t resolve all of that, but it has its place in our strategy execution. You’ll understand that I can’t get into specifics of any of the litigations you hinted at. But enforcement of trademarks, and I think you mentioned a patent case, trademarks and patents at trade fairs has been part of our activities for years, and sometimes you can catch somebody by surprise. It’s all about good preparation. But what I believe is more important is that we also prepare for venues so far less used by Western companies, be it China, et cetera. So being litigation-ready means looking into different venues. The UPC is certainly one of them, but there’s more beyond that. Enforcement for us is not only a German or European measure. I personally believe national courts and the UPC will both have a role to play in the future. There are pros and cons to each, which need to be evaluated case by case. I need to congratulate the UPC, which had a great start, good management, good communication about what they do, and a selection of judges based on quality, not politics. In a little more than three years, they’ve built up a pretty good body of case law. On the downside, some countries are still missing, building a really comprehensive body of case law will take time, and the cost side is still a concern, meaning that not every kind of business case reaches damages high enough to justify it, and there’s a certain risk that the case won’t be decided quickly by the court. In such situations, it might not make sense to go to the UPC. We have, I guess, quite a few companies in the electronics or mechanical engineering field where we don’t validate European patents in dozens of countries, maybe two, three, four, and over time it might be even fewer. So geographically, the difference between US, UPC and national enforcement isn’t that big. That’s why the alternative, and I mentioned this a bit at the beginning regarding the national IP strategy, needs to stay a good alternative. So the possibility to opt out and litigate nationally in lesser business cases remains, from my perspective, important, and we continue to use that as well. Rolf Claessen: Yes, and also the hurdle for double patenting has been lowered a little, so you can still have national patent rights in parallel with UPC patent rights. That’s also an advantage, probably. Peter Berg: Yeah, I think that was almost an invitation to say, you know, if you’re not sure whether the unitary patent is your choice, you can do both in parallel. True. But again, all we need to do is achieve our goals with a good cost-benefit ratio, so systematically double patenting is not really the way forward for us. Rolf Claessen: Right. Yeah, that was a very interesting insight about German national courts versus the UPC. But in fact you’re also litigating across borders, in many different countries, for example the US, Europe, Germany, and other countries, in China maybe. So what does coordinating enforcement across all these different systems simultaneously actually look like from the inside, and was it always the plan to have such complex litigation and enforcement systems, or did it evolve? What’s your take on this? Peter Berg: Yeah, at Infineon, our legal and patent departments, as we call them, have grown together over the last 25 years, roughly the age of our company, into an organization that doesn’t just have broad general legal or semiconductor application market expertise, for us that’s automotive, consumer goods, industrial and IoT, but is an organization that’s been tested by hundreds of assertions against us and our customers, and by negotiations with operating companies and NPEs. So that comes with experience. If I look now at our organization, not just my own team but legal in general, we have patent and legal teams in all the hotspots, and that’s grown in the last couple of years too. It’s Europe, of course North America, and various countries in Asia, and it’s a fully integrated international organization. We know each other and communicate, it feels like, on at least a weekly basis. Not to forget a good network of outside counsel to execute enforcement wherever strategic needs require it. That’s kind of our promise to management: we don’t shy away from any jurisdiction, if the need is there we can act and set up a team. Perhaps we’ve learned more on the defensive side, which we can now translate into offensive action. And I guess you’re somehow relating your question to a specific litigation against a Chinese competitor, and that’s not a litigation you kind of slide into. You need to plan a few steps ahead. Litigation has become part of our daily life, and the key moment is always, once it’s decided that this is going to happen, to set up a team for the new litigation. It starts to feel like a routine operation. The staffing depends of course on the technical area of the enforcement, the jurisdiction, and the workload of existing attorneys. And the good thing is that once we rotate patent attorneys into a litigation team, it’s great experience for them, that leads to expertise, and since we try not to over-specialize, so that people don’t only do litigation or only do prosecution, that experience from litigation is a great asset when they go back to supporting a certain business unit doing prosecution work. And coming back to your first question, that personal experience also helps in creating litigation-ready patents over time. Rolf Claessen: Yes, you’ve also acquired a couple of companies, and I have a question about a certain deal, especially the Marvell Brightlane acquisition and the IP due diligence. This $2.5 billion Brightlane deal closed in August 2025 and presumably transferred a substantial patent portfolio in the automotive, let’s say networking, technology field. How much of that big deal is really about buying IP, and how does a deal like that change your daily work in your IP function the day after closing? So once you’d signed the deal, did your daily life change? Peter Berg: It depends on the size of the deal. A couple of questions in there. Let me start with IP in the semiconductor industry, my industry, and that’s more than patents, trademarks and design rights. Speaking to practitioners and R&D colleagues, IP for them is rather frozen technologies and what we call IP blocks, design blocks which enable fast product designs that you can reuse. And if I take that as a basis, although each acquisition is different, IP plays a very big role because it should enable us to bring new products to market quickly, et cetera. Seldom does Infineon acquire a business because of its patent portfolio. Being a large, established player, our existing patent portfolio should be good enough to move into whatever technical area is of interest, and to make sure incumbent competitors couldn’t easily attack us when entering that field. Now, you mentioned the Marvell acquisition. We call it rather the Marvell automotive Ethernet acquisition. From Marvell’s perspective it was a smaller part of their business, which they sold to Infineon about a year ago. How should I say it, you get the assets but you get relatively little IP. So it’s more that you try to familiarize yourself with the assets and how they fit our business case, et cetera. Of course there is due diligence to get an idea and to make sure that everything that should belong to the business is transparent, but the more important part comes after the acquisition. Once the business is owned by Infineon, all the other functions handle their own areas of responsibility. For us, when it comes to IP rights, it’s about reaching out to the new colleagues, helping them for the first couple of days, but also leaving them alone, because there are so many changes they have to go through, and not being overly pushy. Understanding their current processes and tools, and their view of their own portfolio, is important at that point. So you hold back a little and see what they do and why they do it, sometimes you can learn from their best practices. But there comes a moment when we need to finally decide how to integrate the portfolio, and which of our processes and tools they have to adopt, and the faster you make that decision, the better. Since in the case of Marvell none of the IP staff joined us, the task was to build up a portfolio using the expertise of the senior engineers, get a good operational patent committee running, and develop a plan for which areas of the portfolio are good enough and which need to grow, in line with the growth of the business. It’s now more than a year ago, but that was an interesting time, and I doubt many people listening are aware of it, but a big thank you to everybody involved back in 2025. Rolf Claessen: From your answer I get that your job involved a lot of listening, basically, to the needs of the teams that joined your company, right? Peter Berg: At least as much talking as listening. Of course they want to know as well how we do things and what’s expected of them. So first of all it’s about reaching those people and making sure, and this is also a concern, that if everything changes for them, then perhaps the patenting process isn’t the most important thing. Product development is key, and making sure there’s no interruption so they can keep their timelines, et cetera. So being very mindful of that setting. But you’re right, it’s not just about telling them, it’s about listening to them and finding the right moment to switch. Rolf Claessen: Right, I have a very different question now, about NPEs, non-practicing entities, and exposure. I think some NPEs acquired patent families that trace back to Cypress, just before you bought it, or around the time of your acquisition. Are these patents, held by these NPEs, now a problem for Infineon? Peter Berg: That would be it, right? Actually, no, let me give some context first. Companies in distress, or with an overly large patent portfolio for their business, sometimes sell patents at a certain point in their history. Regarding Cypress Semiconductor, that happened around 2016, after they merged with a company called Spansion and ended up with a large combined portfolio they didn’t need. At that point Cypress teamed up with an NPE organization called IP Value and sold them around 2,000 patents, that’s public knowledge, and only a few years later Infineon acquired Cypress. So that was done by Cypress before it became an Infineon company. But good practice is, if you sell a patent, you retain a license for your own business, so in that sense I don’t feel any exposure from those patents. But of course this touches on the general topic of exposure to NPE enforcement, which is a concern in the electronics industry. Realistically, hundreds is perhaps too much, but many dozens of new cases a month, often against our customers or the wider ecosystem. But since it involves technology implemented in our products, even if the enforcement doesn’t target semiconductor players directly, we need to support our customers, and that is a kind of a load we need to help carry. But these are typically patents that somebody else sold to an NPE. You were also asking whether acquiring businesses brings new opportunities as well as new risk. I think that’s natural, and we shouldn’t shy away from that kind of risk. If we, like any other company, go for the big, high-margin, fast-growing businesses, the stakes are high in those areas, and you can’t complain if these also turn out to be litigious marketplaces, because many people want to be there. Around this time of year, since it’s Oktoberfest season here in Munich, many IP practitioners from around the world gather for meetings and share their view on the world. Everybody talks about AI, and NPEs try to acquire whatever patents are on the market that could be the basis of stronger or weaker infringement actions against that part of the industry. From an industry perspective, this consumes a lot of resources and doesn’t really help accelerate innovation in our space. Rolf Claessen: Good that you have a solution for the patent families that were acquired before you acquired Cypress. And now, turning to a very different topic, cryptography. You’re also working on quantum cryptography and post-quantum cryptography, a difficult word, and you, Infineon, were the first to obtain a certification, a really high certification in post-quantum cryptography, the so-called CC EAL6 certification, a very high certification in cryptography for our listeners, in December 2024. Now this field of technology is heading towards standardization. How patent-dense is Infineon’s patent stack in this field, and how are you thinking about the potential standard-essentiality of this new post-quantum cryptography technology, where maybe the American standards from the NIST institute become the infrastructure, or the standard? Peter Berg: It’s a big field with different components. We take the quantum challenge seriously at Infineon, but there are two elements to it. You spoke more about cryptography, but for us, as a semiconductor player, on one hand we want to enable quantum computing with our own chipsets, and we support two different technology streams there, it’s not just development, it’s already a real business. On the other hand, we need to educate and enable customers in the application fields we serve to prepare for that quantum day, the day quantum computing becomes available, and not only to the good guys. You need to think about this now, because it might be just three, four, five years away, you don’t know for sure. It means investing in infrastructure able to handle post-quantum cryptography and security in communications, because you need certain computing power and different ways of handling cryptography algorithms compared to today. Today’s approaches won’t be enough, you need better ones, and you mentioned one at the beginning, which Infineon has proposed. That’s not easy. If you invest in a core today, you’re investing in something like a power station, which stays connected to the internet for a long time, so you need infrastructure robust enough to handle post-quantum cryptography. Regarding the patent stack question, yes, certainly there are several patents in this field owned by Infineon, but also by others. In general, I believe, both in semiconductors and in security more broadly, this tends toward royalty-free licensing, and standard setting has in the past been marked by the avoidance of the big patent clusters we saw building up in cellular communication, from 2G through 5G. I don’t see that happening in the post-quantum cryptography field, but who knows, so we prepare for whatever scenario comes. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if the Infineon patents end up in a big pool or something later on, and you get all these license fees. Peter Berg: I wouldn’t mind, yeah. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see. Right, now turning to another topic, maybe, for example US colleagues ask me a lot about the German employee invention law. It’s very different from other countries, especially the US. Do you see the German employee invention law rather as an opportunity or a burden for Germany’s innovation ecosystem? Peter Berg: As IP professionals in larger corporations in Germany, we’re so used to that law that we hardly challenge its usefulness. To your question, though, with more than 30 years of experience, I’d say that 99% of all inventions are made by engineers in R&D as part of their regular job, nothing extra on top, so they don’t need an extra motivation for it. And we see it in other countries too, where that kind of law doesn’t exist, and people are just as innovative and just as ready to share their inventions with us as an IP organization, with or without the law. So it doesn’t seem to fulfill the role some see as a competitive edge for Germany, and because of that inventor law, people just end up being more cautious, or more descriptive, about their work results. There are more reasons why I believe this is obsolete. Invention does not equal innovation. There are many other colleagues in a company, in procurement, production, quality management, et cetera, and all of them contribute to a product becoming a bestseller. It’s not a single person, and it’s not just one team’s result, and somehow it doesn’t feel fair that the inventor gets an additional bonus and the others don’t. In any case we’d give our top engineers a premium anyway, and we reward inventors in all other countries, with the law or without it, without any worldwide mandate for that kind of remuneration. So from a corporate perspective we don’t need a law to help us work out the benefits and share them with our top inventors. The law is a bureaucratic nightmare. It needs to be abandoned, or at least radically simplified. In smaller organizations, I guess it’s often just ignored or badly implemented. Believe me, every company we’ve acquired with operations in Germany has left us a bit of a heritage to clean up. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, I understand. Now for a different topic, AI, the use of AI. We as patent attorneys talk about this a lot, it’s a big topic, how to use AI, whether to use AI, and how to use AI in law firms. But can you tell us about the use of AI in the operations of your team? Peter Berg: Recently we discussed this and agreed on kind of three layers to it. First, good use of established AI tools. AI, in that sense, isn’t something that started three years ago with ChatGPT. It began with search, patent search, then translation, at least between the major languages like German and English, which most of my team masters, and then, I’d say about two years ago, drafting and replies to office actions. So there are established tools, and as with every tool, you need to use it repeatedly, at a certain volume, to really benefit from it. We try to work with the best of these established tools, driving wider adoption within the team and partnering with our law firms, since a substantial part of the legal work is done by our outside counsel. So this is a bit of a joint exercise. Second, there are constantly new tools coming up, which we try to test. There are many, so the time we have available to look into them is the limiting factor. I’d like to test more, because there might be a new frontrunner coming up that we should definitely try ourselves. But last, and certainly not least, we try to implement AI into everyday operations, into the office environment itself. The company made a good decision in spring to allow wide adoption of AI-specific tools in a secure environment, and that has opened up a lot of opportunities for everybody, paralegals and attorneys alike, and now it’s about fostering an open exchange on what’s possible and what’s not. And finally, since Infineon, like most corporations, doesn’t do everything in-house, there’s the question of what the benefits are that we can plan around, so that we get better quality. If the quality of the AI results isn’t as good as the attorney’s results before, then we shouldn’t use it, or we’d spend so much time cleaning it up afterwards that nobody could tell the difference. Second, we can now do things that weren’t possible before, because they were too tedious or took too long, or we get faster turnaround times, so we can respond more quickly to standardization proposals, what used to take many days we can now do in a few days, while still trusting the quality of the output. And only then comes what’s often discussed as efficiency gains, and the question that will probably be asked next year is how we split the pie: if both we and outside counsel benefit from using AI, what do we do with those benefits, how much stays with outside counsel, and how much should also benefit my budget? Rolf Claessen: But I clearly see the advantages of using AI, I’m using it myself, especially for cases like oppositions, where in earlier times you had to read through some 30 papers, patents and books, and now you can just ask the AI where you find a certain feature across those 30 documents. So it’s really useful in a lot of cases. Now my last question to you, and maybe the most important one, what do you think are the three most important messages you want to convey to our listeners, who are mostly IP professionals, both in-house and in law firms? Peter Berg: Do you want me to repeat things I said before, or can I think freely, in general? Free thinking, of course. Okay. Many of the things we spoke about now were about what to do next, and how to execute certain things, how to prepare. I believe that if you think about IP strategy, you think about it from the end: what do I need to assert, against whom, for what purpose, before building a portfolio of IP rights. So it’s not just about the deadlines you have today and tomorrow, which you somehow have to get through, but about taking a step back and thinking, what should this be good for in 10 or 20 years’ time. If you do that, it helps you get to litigation-grade patents and litigation readiness. We’re all busy, and there are so many things we need to do today and tomorrow, so it’s easily forgotten to look a little further down the road. So I’d say, think about a multi-year plan to achieve your goals, and there are hardly any moments, unless perhaps you’re one of the big AI platforms with unlimited resources, where that isn’t true. So plan for multiple years, but with a good cost-benefit ratio in mind. And I can’t really avoid mentioning AI here. It’s having a major impact on our operations. We’ve talked about it, we’ve tested it, but ramping it up is a different matter, and I think next year will be decisive. That’s really the full value chain, from interacting with our inventors to get better quality ideas, all the way to claim charting and negotiating, the bread-and-butter activities of patent attorneys, drafting office action replies is of course part of that too. I’m really keen to see that happen, and I’m trying to keep my team ahead of the wave. And I can only encourage everybody in our profession, if you don’t yet have a contact, team up with friends or colleagues in the profession, use the various associations that exist in our profession to network and discuss. The worst thing is to miss the train, and it takes time, this isn’t something you become good at overnight, so it needs time to train, and it’s good to start now. Rolf Claessen: Yes, that’s a very good point, and closing where we began, with the VPP, exchanging ideas among colleagues really is key, I think, important. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays, on our podcast. That was really interesting, and I think our listeners can learn a lot from this interview. Thank you very much. Peter Berg: Don’t mention it, it was a pleasure talking to you, and for me it was also the first time doing this kind of podcast. Thank you. Rolf Claessen: Thank you

The government's overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation is intended to make it easier for agencies to adopt commercial technology. But buying technology faster doesn't automatically produce modernization. Workforce capability, requirements discipline, and agencies' ability to move away from legacy systems all matter too. Megan Petersen, senior vice president of public sector policy and counsel at the Information Technology Industry Council, is here to help us pull all of those threads together.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

"AI makes the answers cheaper, so the good questions and good judgment really become the coin of the realm." - Mason Morgan, Managing Director, Managing Director at CrossCountry Consulting focusing on AI and innovation in S2P Procurement technology has come a long way, but simply adding new technology to existing processes doesn't guarantee better results. As AI becomes a bigger part of the procurement operating model, leaders have to think differently about where technology can create value, which processes are worth preserving and not handing over to AI, and how their teams need to evolve alongside it. In this episode of ProcureTech Insider, Philip Ideson speaks with Mason Morgan, Managing Director at CrossCountry Consulting focusing on AI and innovation in S2P and a judge for the 2027 ProcureTech100, about what separates procurement organizations that realize value from technology from those that struggle to get there. They explore why technology investments need to be considered as part of the broader operating model, how AI is changing the skills procurement needs, and what leaders should prioritize as they plan their next wave of transformation. In this episode, Mason covers how to: -Treat technology investments as operating model changes rather than standalone implementations -Focus AI initiatives on measurable business outcomes and build credibility through early wins -Recognize when an existing process should be redesigned instead of automated -Develop the business acumen and judgment procurement professionals will need in an AI-enabled environment -Create better buying experiences that make the right path the easiest path for stakeholders -Use technology to extend procurement's influence without requiring procurement to own every step of the process Links: Mason Morgan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mason-morgan-94055a7/  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

Most cities operate on assumptions that were handed down years ago and consider frontline workers as executors of top-down decisions. In this episode, San Francisco's former Chief of Strategy and Performance Jessica MacLeod shows what happens when you treat them as problem-solvers with lived expertise and new ideas. Add visible systems mapping, permission to experiment, and data that has narrative, and suddenly government can move at the speed of actual change.In this episode, you'll learn:Why frontline stories unlock patterns dashboards miss—and make data actually meaningfulHow mapping hidden assumptions lets you test what actually works versus what you've always doneHow brighter lights reduced drug complaints 54% in one park, then scaled across the cityWhy small experiments at every level create change makers faster than top-down mandatesWhy empowering staff to solve problems (not interrogating them on numbers) unlocks actual performance changeListener Survey: bit.ly/datasmartpodMusic credit: Summer-Man by KetsaAbout Data-Smart City SolutionsData-Smart City Solutions, housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University, is working to catalyze the adoption of data projects on the local government level by serving as a central resource for cities interested in this emerging field. We highlight best practices, top innovators, and promising case studies while also connecting leading industry, academic, and government officials. Our research focus is the intersection of government and data, ranging from open data and predictive analytics to civic engagement technology. We seek to promote the combination of integrated, cross-agency data with community data to better discover and preemptively address civic problems. To learn more visit us online and follow us on LinkedIn.

O comprador que só olha preço está enxergando apenas a ponta do iceberg.Na conversa com Emília Kaneko, Gerente de Suprimentos da Anglo American, fica clara a transformação pela qual Procurement passou e continua passando.Compras deixou de ser uma área que simplesmente recebe demandas, coloca pedidos e busca desconto.Hoje, o profissional precisa entender o negócio, avaliar riscos, analisar o custo total, trabalhar junto ao financeiro e participar das decisões que impactam a empresa.E a tecnologia acelera ainda mais essa transformação.A Inteligência Artificial pode assumir tarefas operacionais, ampliar o acesso à informação e apoiar análises cada vez mais complexas.Mas existe um ponto que Emília reforça:A tecnologia não substitui o conhecimento do comprador.Ela libera tempo para que o profissional faça aquilo que realmente gera valor:✅ Entender o negócio.✅ Conhecer a operação.✅ Conversar com fornecedores antes da demanda chegar.✅ Analisar riscos e alternativas.✅ Construir relações de confiança.✅ Tomar decisões com visão de longo prazo.Outro aprendizado importante está na relação com o fornecedor.Se ele é quem mais entende daquilo que você está comprando, por que conversar com ele apenas quando a requisição já está na sua mesa?O Procurement estratégico começa antes da compra.E talvez a provocação mais simples e poderosa da entrevista seja justamente essa:Saia da sua mesa. Faça perguntas. Conheça o negócio.Porque quanto mais o comprador entende a operação, melhores são as decisões que consegue tomar.E você, conhece de verdade o negócio e a operação para os quais compra?Confira a entrevista completa no Café com Comprador.

Relebogile Mabotja speaks to Thobile Zuma, founder of Tendrai, about the challenges small businesses face when trying to access procurement opportunities. From finding the right tender and navigating complex requirements to submitting proposals, undergoing vetting, managing contracts and waiting for payment, the procurement process can feel like a maze. Tendrai brings buyers and service providers together in one ecosystem, using AI to assist with supplier matching and decision-making while keeping humans in control. So, can technology make procurement more transparent, efficient and accessible particularly for South Africa’s SMMEs? 702 Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja is broadcast live on Johannesburg based talk radio station 702 every weekday afternoon. Relebogile brings a lighter touch to some of the issues of the day as well as a mix of lifestyle topics and a peak into the worlds of entertainment and leisure. Thank you for listening to a 702 Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja podcast. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 13:00 to 15:00 (SA Time) to Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/2qKsEfu or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/DTykncj Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AI is making it easier than ever to build new technology, but also harder to know which companies will still matter tomorrow. In this episode, I speak with Miguel Bagulho, Investment Director for Retail Technology at Bright Pixel Capital, the technology investment arm of Sonae, about how investors identify startups with real long-term potential in such a fast-moving market.We explore what makes retail technology defensible, why solving a measurable business problem matters more than the technology itself, and how retailers should approach the decision to build or buy. Miguel also shares where he sees the biggest opportunities ahead, from AI-native software and robotics to the technologies transforming pricing, inventory, procurement, and supply chains.

Simon Lipscomb is joined by Mike Fedorov, COO and co-CEO at AI Labs, to discuss how procurement leaders can move beyond the hype surrounding AI and focus on where it can deliver genuine business value.

"You don't need an advanced platform to begin. You just need consistent definitions, discipline, to look at the data, and a willingness to move beyond the on-time delivery average to make really good decisions going forward." Traditional supplier scorecards can tell procurement whether a supplier delivered on time, but they may not reveal whether that supplier's commitments are becoming less reliable over time. In this episode, Philip Ideson is joined by Shayan Farshid, a procurement and operations professional, to discuss the Supplier Stability Index, an open-source framework Shayan developed to help procurement teams get a more complete view of supplier performance. Shayan explains how looking beyond traditional on-time delivery metrics can reveal things like commitment drift, unresolved delivery exposure, quality issues, and other signals that may put production schedules at risk. He also shares why he made the framework open source, particularly for small and midsize manufacturers that may not have access to sophisticated supplier risk technology. In this episode, Shayan discusses how to: -Identify supplier risks that traditional scorecards may miss -Measure supplier stability using data teams already have -Prioritize supplier issues based on exposure and criticality -Turn supplier data into more proactive supplier conversations -Build stronger data foundations before applying AI -Start measuring supplier stability without an advanced technology platform   Links: Shayan Farshid on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sfarshid/  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

Presented by Dr. Teresa Brown, Superintendent, Madison Consolidated Schools (IN); Dr. Kelly May-Vollmar, Superintendent, Desert Sands Unified School District (CA); Dr. Nick Polyak, Superintendent, Leyden High School District 212 (IL); and Paula Maylahn, Education Industry Consultant, Project Director, CoSN (Consortium for School Networking)Moderated by Ann McMullan, Project Director, CoSN/AASA EmpowerED Superintendents Initiative, CoSN (Consortium for School Networking)This edWeb podcast is presented by CoSN and AASA and sponsored by ClassLink.The edLeader Panel recording can be accessed here.Each year, CoSN (Consortium for School Networking) conducts a national survey among education technology leaders to assess the current state of technology innovation across multiple school systems. Season 9 of the CoSN/AASA EmpowerED Superintendent edWeb podcast Series opens with an overview of CoSN's U.S. State of EdTech 2026 survey. Four specific key findings in leading technology innovations identified in the survey results will be included in the panel discussion:Artificial Intelligence (AI)CybersecurityProcurementTeaching & LearningAccess to the free full report of CoSN's U.S. State of EdTech 2026 survey, along with multiple online resources that address the key findings listed above, are shared. This edWeb podcast is of interest to K-12 district leaders, school leaders, education technology leaders, superintendent association leaders, teachers, and librarians.View all of the recent EmpowerED Superintendent edLeader Panels.Learn more about viewing live edWeb presentations and on-demand recordings, earning CE certificates, and using accessibility features.

Send us Fan MailEpisode 86: Unlocking the BlueWave Advantage: How Pool Companies Can BenefitLauren Broom sits down with Tom Patterson, VP of BlueWave and Procurement at SPS Pool Care, to discuss the BlueWave Advantage Program and how it can help pool companies access valuable resources, strengthen their operations, and grow their businesses. Tune in for insights and practical information for pool professionals looking to take advantage of the program.Strategic Podcast Sponsor:  Pool Brain

 Rohit Pathak |  CEO of Copper business of Hindalco Rohit Pathak is the CEO of Birla Copper, the largest Copper player in India and #3 globally for Copper Rods outside China. This is the Copper business of Hindalco Industries Limited, a flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group.Mr. Pathak is a Director on the National Executive Council of IEEMA since 2019 the industry association of the electrical equipment industry in India and the President of the Association for the year 2022-23. Mr. Pathak is also the President of the Indian Primary Copper Producers Association IPCPA since 2022 and a Director of the Fertiliser Association of India FAI since 2021.Prior to moving to Birla Copper, Mr. Pathak was the President & CEO of Aditya Birla Insulators largest Insulator player in India and 3rd largest porcelain player globally, where he led its diversification into Composites and the growth of the international business. He was also appointed the first CEO of Aditya Birla Power Composites Limited, a JV of Grasim Industries Limited with Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen of Germany for Composite Hollow Core Insulators.Mr. Pathak joined the Aditya Birla Group in 2011 as the Principal EA to the Chairman, Mr. Kumar Mangalam Birla. In that role he advised Mr. Birla on key priorities such as M&A, organic growth, and special initiatives and strategic planning & monitoring across the Group Businesses, and helped the businesses on strategic issues. He is a recipient of the Chairmans' Award for Exceptional Contribution in 2015.Prior to joining the group, Mr. Pathak  was an Associate Principal at McKinsey & Company, where he worked on diverse issues such as new market entry, business turnaround, inorganic growth, large scale performance transformations, and business plan development and delivery. He also led the Procurement practice and co-led the Automotive & Assembly practice in India for the firm.Mr. Pathak has done his PGDM from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad India and Electrical & Electronics Engineering from BITS Pilani Pilani Campus, India. He is a recipient of the Prof L K Maheshwari Distinguished Alumnus Award 2023, awarded by the EEE Dept of BITS Pilani. 

Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis speaks to Amy MacIver about the Constitutional Court ruling invalidating the Public Procurement Act. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Industrial Talk is talking to Michal Ukropec, CEO at Twinzo about "Operational Digital Twin: Real-Time operational insights from all your connected devices". Overview Digital twin and real-time logistics tracking were discussed as ways to improve manufacturing visibility, efficiency, and competitiveness. Digitalization Gap Michalsaid European manufacturers lag behind China and often operate legacy systems without connectivity or a coherent digitalization strategy.Procurement decisions that remove connectivity features can create long-term data and integration problems. Twinzo Use Case Twinzotracks logistics fleets, materials, and movement from suppliers through production, integrating data from PLCs, MES, and WMS systems.Real-time location data can reduce forklift fleet requirements, prevent micro-stoppages, and improve material flow without adding equipment or staff. Adoption Barriers What leadership commitment and strategy are needed to modernize plants using legacy systems?How can manufacturers ensure operational data is clean, accurate, and trusted before applying AI or analytics?The discussion emphasized piloting technologies at limited scale, measuring results, and balancing technology with effective leadership and workforce engagement. Outline Manufacturing Competitiveness Workforce and industrial competitiveness were framed as shared priorities.Europe's digitalization gap compared with China and the United States was discussed. Legacy Infrastructure Many plants still rely on older PLCs and IBM AS/400-era systems.Replacing legacy infrastructure can be expensive and disruptive, but inaction limits visibility and efficiency. Twinzo Platform Twinzooriginated in indoor positioning and evolved toward manufacturing and logistics tracking.The platform can monitor fleets, materials, workstations, and production movement.Potential integrations include PLC, MES, and WMS data. Operational Benefits Real-time location system data can reveal inefficient routes and unnecessary fleet capacity.An automated material-ordering workflow was compared to an “Uber for the plant.”Additional use cases include reducing energy waste and identifying equipment operating without orders. Technology and Leadership AI was characterized as a tool requiring appropriate data, evaluation, and measured adoption.Leadership, culture, workforce capability, and trust remain central to successful transformation. If interested in being on the Industrial Talk show, simply contact us and let's have a quick conversation. Finally, get your exclusive free access to the Industrial Academy and a series on “Why You Need To Podcast” for Greater Success in 2026. All links designed for keeping you current in this rapidly changing Industrial Market. Learn! Grow! Enjoy! MICHAL UKROPEC'S CONTACT INFORMATION: Personal LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michalukropec/ Company LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/twinzo/home/ Company Website: https://www.twinzo.com/ PODCAST VIDEO: THE STRATEGIC REASON "WHY YOU NEED TO PODCAST": OTHER GREAT INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES: NEOM: https://www.neom.com/en-us Hexagon: https://hexagon.com/ Arduino: https://www.arduino.cc/ Fictiv: https://www.fictiv.com/ Hitachi Vantara: https://www.hitachivantara.com/en-us/home.html Industrial Marketing Solutions:  https://industrialtalk.com/industrial-marketing/ Industrial Academy: https://industrialtalk.com/industrial-academy/ Industrial Dojo: https://industrialtalk.com/industrial_dojo/ We the 15: https://www.wethe15.org/ YOUR INDUSTRIAL DIGITAL TOOLBOX: LifterLMS: Get One Month Free for $1 –

Episode 267: API Heat Transfer was responding to requests for quotation when, according to research in one of its priority segments, buyers had already decided who they trusted. The manufacturer of heat exchangers had strong products and deep engineering expertise. It understood much less about how customers chose a supplier for a particular order. It would have been easy to miss the gap in understanding. API's revenue grew with healthy margins. Some customers had been buying for decades. But familiarity didn't necessarily give customers enough reason to defend API when a competitor offered a lower price or faster delivery. Daniel Herrmann, API's Vice President of Corporate Development and Strategy, joins Rob Markey to explore how the company is changing its approach. Historically, a customer provided a specification, API built and shipped the product, and the relationship largely paused until the next order or service problem. Their research revealed how much happened while API wasn't in the conversation.  "We realized we were leaving value on the table," by not maintaining the relationship after the sale, but before another RFQ had been requested, Daniel explains. "More importantly, we were not there for our customers when [it] mattered." Getting involved earlier required more than scheduling meetings. Account managers agreed that talking with customers was a good idea. But without an order or technical question to discuss, they weren't sure how to make those conversations useful. API introduced regular reviews with larger customers. They developed a global sales development program to help the API team discuss customers' priorities, alternatives, and business plans. As Daniel puts it, "Investing in the relationship is selling." API also began broadening whose feedback it sought. Procurement's satisfaction with a shipment could reveal little about the maintenance team's experience after a year of operating the equipment. A new relationship survey reaches across decision makers to help API understand what transaction scores alone could miss. Daniel shares with Rob that his focus now is creating what he calls a "central nervous system" for understanding customers and turning stronger relationships into a repeatable way of doing business.  The work is still underway. Rob and Daniel examine the test ahead: whether these changes will lead customers to buy more, give API a greater share of their spending, and generate more profitable business. Guest: Daniel Herrmann, Vice President, Corporate Development & Strategy, API Heat Transfer Host: Rob Markey, Partner, Bain & Company Give us feedback: Customer Confidential Podcast Feedback Send us a note: Contact Rob Timestamped Topics 02:01 – The "invisible infrastructure" behind data centers, power systems, and everyday life 09:19 – API's traditional product-first, transaction-focused model 11:00 – The difference between genuine loyalty and customer inertia 13:33 – Why some customers were leaving  21:38 – How aftermarket service can strengthen loyalty and customer lifetime value 26:16 – Building customer relationships when there is no order on the table 27:18 – Why "investing in the relationship is selling" 30:03 – Moving beyond transactional NPS to measure overall relationship health Notable Quotes 11:00: "We weren't asking whether this growth was based on inertia or genuine loyalty. And by inertia, I mean the way we had always done things and customers always engaging in a certain way. We never dug into that because everything felt good." 13:50: "We had a very consistent finding that the real purchase decision happens before the RFQ, and we were in this RFQ stage. And we didn't really understand the buying stages because we never had to previously. But when the purchase decision happens, we're not actually in the room, and so vendor selection is effectively determined before any procurement process begins." 22:02: "And there's a real parallel to API's business. Historically, we were not holding these service contracts, and we were not maintaining continuity. So every time a customer needed something after our initial sale, we were starting from scratch. And that really limits how much loyalty you can build, and it limits your share of lifetime value that the customer represents." 27:18: "Investing in the relationship is selling. That's part of the process, and that's how you evolve out of a transactional mindset. It's: you're not an order taker, you're a partner, you're a consultative partner." 37:12: "Frankly, what drew me to API was this gap that I recognized immediately where we have 150 years of history, over 120 engineers, more than a million installations, and one of the most comprehensive portfolios. But we hadn't really built the centralized commercial infrastructure to match that, and, you know, I always look at that as a central nervous system to understanding your customers."

Host: Lalo Solorzano and Andy Shiles Guest(s): Hal Berman and John Petitte Published: September 17, 2026 Length: 38:47 Presented by: Global Training Center Summary Tariff engineering isn't just a compliance exercise—it can become a powerful strategy for reducing landed costs, improving sourcing decisions, and strengthening profitability. In this episode of Simply Trade, Lalo Solorzano and Andy Shiles welcome back Hal Berman and John Petitte of Trade Insight for a practical discussion about how companies can approach tariff engineering as a cross-functional business initiative. The conversation explores why successful duty optimization requires much more than finding a different tariff classification. Engineering, sourcing, procurement, finance, operations, tax, supply chain, and compliance may all hold pieces of the information needed to determine whether a change actually makes financial sense. Hal and John share examples involving product design, component sourcing, final assembly, free trade agreements, and duty exposure to illustrate how relatively small changes can potentially produce meaningful savings. They also discuss the role of AI as a research and productivity tool for trained trade professionals—not as a replacement for human judgment. The bigger lesson: companies can get more value when trade considerations enter the product lifecycle earlier, rather than waiting until goods reach the border. Main Topic / Discussion Tariff engineering is the process of evaluating how legitimate changes to a product's design, materials, sourcing, manufacturing, assembly, or supply chain can affect tariff treatment and overall landed cost. The discussion emphasizes that effective tariff engineering requires a holistic view. A lower duty rate alone doesn't necessarily make a change worthwhile. Companies must consider supplier agreements, manufacturing costs, labor, logistics, tax implications, compliance requirements, and other costs before determining the actual return on investment. Build a Cross-Functional Team Compliance may help lead the analysis, but the necessary information often lives throughout the organization. Engineering understands product design. Procurement and sourcing understand suppliers and contracts. Finance can evaluate ROI. Operations and supply chain understand manufacturing and logistics constraints. Executive sponsorship can help these groups work toward the same objective instead of leaving compliance to pursue optimization opportunities alone. Start Small and Build a Repeatable Process Rather than reviewing every SKU at once, the conversation suggests identifying products associated with significant duty spend and evaluating specific opportunities. Even when the first project doesn't uncover savings, the exercise can establish a repeatable framework: which questions need to be asked, who owns the information, what constraints matter, and which stakeholders need to participate. Over time, tariff considerations can move earlier in the product lifecycle and potentially become part of product and supply-chain design. AI as a Trade Professional's Tool AI and technology can help trade professionals research classifications and analyze much larger product libraries, but the episode stresses the importance of human involvement and transparent reasoning. The objective is to give trained professionals better tools, clearer supporting rationale, and greater capacity—not simply automate away the compliance function. Key Takeaways • Tariff engineering goes beyond finding a lower duty rate; companies should evaluate total landed cost and overall ROI. • The strongest opportunities can involve product design, materials, sourcing, manufacturing location, final assembly, free trade agreements, and other special tariff provisions. • Compliance cannot effectively execute tariff optimization alone. Engineering, finance, sourcing, procurement, operations, supply chain, tax, and other stakeholders may need to participate. • Executive sponsorship can help transform tariff optimization from an isolated compliance project into an ongoing cross-functional business process. • Starting with high-duty products can create a manageable pilot project and establish a framework that can later be repeated across additional SKUs. • Bringing trade considerations into the product-development process earlier can give engineers and sourcing teams additional information when making design and supplier decisions. • AI can expand research and classification capacity, but trained trade professionals and human judgment remain central to defensible compliance decisions. Resources & Mentions • Global Training Center • Hal Berman on LinkedIn • John Petitte on LinkedIn Credits Host: Lalo Solorzano Andy Shiles Guest(s): Hal Berman - LinkedIn John Petitte - LinkedIn Producer: Lalo Solorzano

Dear Diary… "I believe we are in the midst of a revolution — and I think in a revolution, we as a vendor also want to invest a lot in educating the community on what's really changing and how it's changing." This episode kicks off a new Art of Procurement podcast series, produced in partnership with Zycus. I sit down with the person who made the series possible to talk about why it exists and where agentic AI is really heading. Aatish Dedhia is the Founder and CEO of Zycus, a company that entered procurement in the early 2000s and has lived through every wave of its digitization since. He traces procurement's last 20 years from digitization to machine learning to generative AI, then makes a bold claim: this is a once-in-a-few-centuries change, closer to the Industrial Revolution than to mobile or cloud. In this episode of The Agentic Procurement Diaries podcast, Philip Ideson and Aatish discuss: - Why a point agent is not agentic, and why agent sprawl is causing companies to miss the real ROI of AI - The three layers of guardrails that keep agents in check: the system of record, the agentic policy layer, and the human in the loop - What procurement leaders overestimate and underestimate, starting with the truth that you cannot put AI on a broken process - The three segments Zycus sees today: AI hungry, AI curious, and AI resistant   Links: Aatish takes this conversation further at PLAN 2026 on November 18 Zycus on LinkedIn AOP Provider Directory | Zycus Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube

City of Atlanta CIO Jason Sankey shares how Atlanta uses pilots, controlled environments and public-private partnerships to test emerging technologies before scaling them across the city. He explains why some promising AI ideas fail the citizen test, how the city is evolving its AI governance from thought leadership to action, and why proof matters more than promises when evaluating technology partners. From predictive water infrastructure and free public Wi-Fi to generative AI and air taxis, the conversation offers a practical look at building a future-ready city without chasing every shiny object—an approach enterprise innovation leaders can apply well beyond government.

Procurement's ‘hidden' operational costs often sit in the coordination required to get work done across the business. Beyond the hours spent chasing stakeholders, locating contracts, reconstructing negotiation history, and digging through systems, teams can lose value through delayed savings, unsustainable supplier agreements, and the opportunity cost of focusing on transactions instead of more strategic work.  Procurement works with nearly every other function, and so these costs can accumulate in the gaps between teams without ever appearing in traditional performance metrics. In this episode of The Sourcing Hero podcast, Host Kelly Barner welcomes Mike Fedorov to the show. Mike is the Chief Operating Officer and Co-CEO at Applied AI Labs. He has over 25 years worth of hands-on operations and supply chain experience, and he has either run or turned around operations for some of the most complex companies in the world. Listen in to hear Mike explain: Where procurement is most vulnerable to getting pulled into cross-functional busy work The difference between work that creates value and work that simply keeps a process moving How procurement should think about data readiness without getting stuck waiting for perfect data Links: Mike Fedorov on LinkedIn

In B2B sales, hitting a wall with leadership turnover, rigid procurement negotiations, or declining email response rates can derail even the most promising deals, and navigating these complex hurdles requires a shift from transactional tactics to a robust strategy of strategic selling. In this episode, co-hosts Dave Hanley and Mark Cox of In The Funnel dive into the mailbag to answer real-world questions from high-performing sellers, exploring how to manage account transitions when key decision-makers move on while sharing insights on leveraging tools like a key account plan to check in on client value. They also break down how to loop procurement into the deal-making process early on to minimize disruption and how to stand out on social media with value-driven outreach, referencing classic sales resources like The New Strategic Selling by Miller Hyman and Social Selling and Influence by Timothy Hughes and Adam Gray to help you humanize your sales approach and protect your pipeline.  

Brought to you by the English Programme. Featuring news, politics, popular culture, celebrity trivia, quizzes, book readings, and a whole host of fun.Support Our Rescue Cats | Our Blog | Get New Episodes By Email | Rumble | X | YouTube | NewsK365 on Spreaker | Get New Blog Posts By Email | Throne Wishlist |

Getting a buyer interested in our solution is only the beginning of a B2B sale. In many organisations — and particularly in Japan — the person sitting across from us may have very little authority to make the final decision. Instead, we need that person to become our internal champion. They have to take our idea back into their organisation, explain it, defend it, overcome resistance and put their own reputation behind recommending us. That creates an important responsibility for salespeople. We are not merely asking someone to help us win a deal. We are asking them to take a professional risk on our behalf. What is an internal champion in B2B sales? An internal champion is someone inside the buyer organisation who believes in your solution strongly enough to advocate for it when you are not in the room. Usually, we meet our initial contact through a cold call, referral or networking. We explain what we do, perhaps mention another client we have helped and then ask permission to explore their situation. If we are doing professional consultative selling, we ask questions and go deeply into the issues facing the organisation. Eventually, we start suggesting solutions matched to those needs. That is often when reality appears. Our contact may be enthusiastic about solving the problem but discover that managers, executives, Finance, Procurement or other divisions are not nearly as enthusiastic. We cannot personally attend every internal conversation. Our contact therefore becomes our representative. They have to carry the sale forward for us. Do now: Identify who inside the client genuinely wants the change to happen. Interest alone isn't enough — you need someone willing to advocate internally. Why are internal champions particularly important when selling in Japan? Japanese corporate buying often involves multiple stakeholders, so the salesperson's original contact may be only one participant in a much larger decision-making process. In traditional Japanese organisations, a proposal can move through several layers of internal review. Divisions affected by the purchase may conduct their own due diligence. Section Heads may approve the proposal before it moves to Division Heads. Depending on the scale and nature of the decision, senior executives may then become involved. The traditional ringi process illustrates why internal consensus matters so much in Japan. That can mean a tremendous number of people are involved. Meanwhile, we may only know one of them. The person sitting opposite us may not even have final approval authority, yet we depend upon them to help navigate the proposal through the organisation. This is why Japanese B2B selling cannot simply be about persuading one individual. We need to help that individual persuade everyone else. Do now: Ask, "Who else will be involved in evaluating or approving this decision?" Then help your champion prepare for each stakeholder's concerns. What risk does an internal champion take when recommending a supplier? Your champion puts their credibility and sometimes their career reputation behind your solution, because if your company fails, they may be blamed for recommending you. This is something salespeople can easily underestimate. We naturally think about our own risk. Will we win the contract? Will we achieve our sales target? Will we earn the commission? The buyer's champion is considering something completely different. "If I recommend these people and it goes badly, what happens to me?" Their colleagues are unlikely to say, "Well, that supplier made an unfortunate operational decision." They may say: "Why did you choose them?" That makes trust central to the sale. Our champion has to believe we are credible, reliable and capable of delivering what we promise. They also need confidence that supporting us won't make them look foolish in front of senior management. When viewed from their perspective, choosing a new supplier can be a significant personal risk. Do now: Before asking a champion to advocate for you, ask yourself, "What professional risk am I asking this person to accept?" What can go wrong when a salesperson fails to protect the champion? If the supplier fails after an internal champion has fought to get the deal approved, the damage can extend far beyond the contract — it can damage the champion's standing inside the organisation. I learned this lesson painfully while selling imported mobile telephone antenna steel towers in Japan. The towers were sourced from Australia, and we could install them for around 30% of the price being offered by local suppliers. Imported towers were new, however, so getting agreement wasn't straightforward. The buyer was a joint venture whose executives had come from several shareholder companies. Some arrived with relationships with preferred Japanese suppliers. My champions had to fight internally to get the Australian solution accepted. There was even resistance from the local supplier group, which reacted aggressively to the cheaper imported competition. Eventually, my champions got the deal through. Then things went wrong. The Australian supplier decided to move production to Malaysia to reduce costs. Quality problems followed. Eventually, the business collapsed. Do now: Winning internal approval isn't the finish line. Once your champion has backed you, delivery becomes part of protecting their reputation. Why does supplier failure damage the salesperson personally? From the champion's perspective, the salesperson represents the entire supplier organisation, so internal operational failures can become personal failures of trust. I hadn't personally made the decision to move production from Australia to Malaysia. That distinction didn't matter. To my champion, I was their guy. I had brought the supplier into the company. I had made the promises. They had trusted me enough to fight internally for the deal. Then the supplier let them down. The relationship was destroyed. They stopped talking to me, which I took as a very bad sign indeed. My name was mud. That experience taught me something important about mutual responsibility in selling. Salespeople sometimes think, "That problem came from Operations", "Head Office made the decision" or "Manufacturing caused the failure". The customer doesn't care about our organisational chart. Neither does our champion. We own the promises we make on behalf of our organisation. Do now: Never recommend something internally that you aren't confident your own organisation can deliver. Your credibility travels with the solution. How can salespeople help their champions win internally? The salesperson should make the champion's internal selling job easier by providing the arguments, evidence and risk reduction they need to persuade other decision-makers. Think about what your champion will face after you leave the meeting. Their boss may ask why the company should change. Finance may question the economics. Procurement may challenge the supplier. Users may worry about implementation. Senior leaders may ask what could go wrong. Your champion needs answers. We should therefore provide more than a proposal. Give them a clear business case. Provide relevant evidence. Explain implementation. Anticipate objections. Identify risks and explain how those risks will be managed. Make the recommendation easy for them to explain to other stakeholders. Most importantly, remain conscious that your champion is lending you something precious: their internal credibility. If the deal succeeds, you want them to look smart for having backed you. That is how long-term trusted-adviser relationships are built. Do now: Ask yourself, "What does my champion need to make this recommendation safely and convincingly when I'm not there?" What should salespeople remember about their internal champions? The sale isn't only about getting agreement from the organisation. It is about protecting the person helping us obtain that agreement. Find your champion. Build their trust. Understand the stakeholders they need to influence. Give them the evidence and arguments they need. Reduce the personal and organisational risk attached to choosing you. Then deliver what you promised. My steel-tower experience taught me this lesson the hard way. A champion who fights internally for us deserves much more than our gratitude. They deserve our protection. When we begin the sales process with that responsibility in mind, we make better decisions about what we promise, what we sell and how we deliver. And there is another benefit. Protecting our champion also protects our own personal brand and reputation in the marketplace. Author bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie One Carnegie Award (2018 and 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver programmes globally across leadership, communication, sales and presentations, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including the best-sellers Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery and Japan Presentations Mastery, as well as Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery and Japan's Top Business Interviews for executives and professionals seeking practical strategies for succeeding in Japan.

Brought to you by the English Programme. Featuring news, politics, popular culture, celebrity trivia, quizzes, book readings, and a whole host of fun.Support Our Rescue Cats | Our Blog | Get New Episodes By Email | Rumble | X | YouTube | NewsK365 on Spreaker | Get New Blog Posts By Email | Throne Wishlist |

"It's all about building that momentum, creating the value, testing the hypothesis, and then continuing to challenge us to take it to that next level." Darshan Deshmukh, President at ProcureAbility AI adoption in procurement is accelerating, but experimentation alone does not equal transformation. With organizations launching pilots, testing new platforms, and exploring agentic capabilities, procurement leaders need to keep a clear connection between the technology they adopt and the business outcomes they are trying to create. In this episode, Kelly Barner is joined by Darshan Deshmukh, President at ProcureAbility, for a CPO-level discussion about moving from AI experimentation to meaningful procurement transformation. Darshan shares what he is seeing across procurement organizations as AI maturity increases, including why so many teams remain focused on efficiency and productivity and what separates those efforts from more intentional transformation. He and Kelly also discuss the importance of starting with a business problem rather than a technology or use case, as well as the evolving role of agentic AI, data quality, human judgment, and organizational culture. Listen to this episode, to hear Darshan discuss how to: -Move beyond isolated AI pilots, and toward intentional transformation -Start AI initiatives with the business problem and desired outcome -Use AI to identify risk signals and accelerate decision-making -Build trust through stronger data, transparency, and measurable results -Expand procurement's contribution beyond cost and risk -Create a culture where experimentation and learning can happen without fear of failure Links: Darshan Deshmukh on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/darshan-deshmukh/  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

AI is showing up in procurement workflows whether we invite it or not, so we wanted a grounded conversation about what actually works and what can backfire. I'm joined by Jennifer Lyons, Deputy General Counsel at the Operational Services Division for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to talk practical AI in public procurement with real examples from the field, not theory.We dig into where AI delivers immediate value, like speeding up repeatable administrative tasks, summarizing complex RFP and RFR documents, and generating better options during policy development. We also talk about how suppliers are using AI to quickly decide whether to respond to a solicitation, and what that means for clarity and competition.We explore how AI can help maintain continuity across supplier issues, surface patterns in supplier performance, and support risk awareness. Jennifer also explains why Massachusetts built tools inside secure environments, including a procurement chatbot used for onboarding and help desk support, plus a contract editor nicknamed 1L that accelerates first-pass redlining. Throughout, we keep coming back to the non-negotiables: transparency, fairness, bias awareness, and the reality that humans remain accountable for accuracy and final decisions.If you're building an AI policy, planning a pilot, or trying to choose your first “quick win,” this conversation will help you separate safe productivity gains from high-risk automation. Follow & subscribe to stay up-to-date on NASPO!naspo.org | Pulse Blog | LinkedIn | Youtube | Facebook 

A IA vai substituir o comprador?

A social service provider is calling on the Government to urgently review its procurement rules. 

What does it really take to influence when you do not have formal authority? In this conversation with Laura Sellers, global executive and team coach for Procurement professionals, we explore why influence, confidence and relationship-building are essential leadership capabilities for professionals who want to elevate their impact across an organisation.  Laura shares why introverted energy is not a barrier to influence or leadership presence, and how some of the most impactful leaders are not the loudest in the room, but those who choose their moment, build strong relationships and communicate with intention. We discuss the shift many professionals need to make as they become more senior, moving from technical expertise into relationship-based influence. This is especially important when you are influencing without authority, working across functions, collaborating remotely or navigating cultural differences. What you will learn in this episode: Why introverted energy can be a strength in leadership and influence How to challenge narrow ideas of what confidence should look like Ethical influence is not manipulation Why relationships are central to influencing without authority 'What does good look like?'- a simple question for complex dynamics How the drama triangle can help you understand conflict patterns Bringing more of yourself into your leadership  How does your natural communication style help you influence, and where might it need to flex? Before you step into a difficult conversation, what role could you be playing in the relationship dynamic? What part of yourself might you be leaving behind when you communicate in a different culture, language or context? Resources: Connect with Laura Sellers on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-sellers/ Visit Laura Sellers' website: https://www.coachingforprocurement.co.uk/ Buy Victoria's book, Become a Global Leader:https://culturecuppa.com/book/ Follow Victoria on LinkedIn for more strategies, ideas and inspiration: https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-rennoldson Watch the video of this Episode here: How to Influence without Authority, with Laura Sellers: https://culturecuppa.com/podcasts/197-how-to-influence-without-authority-with-laura-sellers/ Read this Episode's Blog post here: Why influence starts with relationships: https://culturecuppa.com/why-influence-starts-with-relationships/

Ray Dunford knows the Kelvin-3 drill has one dangerous flaw: its sensors understand Nevada geology, not an alien world. Procurement says the software update can wait eleven weeks. Buried beneath Outpost Zero, something has already waited much longer.When Ray and three crewmates cut into a miles-long metallic structure under the glacier, they find corridors lined with impossible bodies, precise industrial hardware, and a power network wired through the walls. Then the mining software makes the worst possible mistake. The buried system begins to wake.Heat tears through the frozen structure. The hull repairs itself. The glacier above starts to fail. With an injured crew, a storm closing in, and rescue more than twenty hours away, Ray has to do what he has always done: read the machinery faster than it can kill him.But this machine was built for a purpose, and the thing it is powering lies deeper inside.

Host: Lalo Solorzano & Andy Shiles Guest(s): Anders Lillevik Published: September 10, 2026 Length: Approx. 34 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center Summary Procurement and trade compliance may sit in different departments, but today's volatile global environment makes it increasingly difficult for them to operate independently. In this episode of Simply Trade, Lalo Solorzano and Andy Shiles sit down with Anders Lillevik, Founder and CEO of Focal Point and a procurement veteran with more than 25 years of experience, to explore how procurement, compliance, risk, and logistics can work together to build stronger and more resilient supply chains. Anders explains why understanding your direct suppliers is no longer enough. Organizations need visibility into the suppliers, subcontractors, geographic dependencies, and risks hiding further down the supply chain. The conversation explores supplier diversification, changing tariffs, transportation disruptions, internal bureaucracy, compliance requirements, and why companies need contingency plans before the next crisis arrives. The group also discusses an often-overlooked opportunity: bringing trade compliance into the procurement process earlier. From classification and product descriptions to supplier vetting and sourcing decisions, collaboration before a purchase order is issued can prevent delays and costly surprises later. For trade professionals, procurement leaders, logistics teams, and executives, this episode offers a practical framework for identifying risk and preparing your organization to respond faster when disruption hits. Main Topic / Discussion Modern procurement is no longer simply about finding the lowest-cost supplier. Organizations must balance cost, compliance, risk, resilience, transportation, supplier capacity, and geopolitical uncertainty. Anders explains that effective procurement includes sourcing suppliers, managing existing suppliers, and transacting with them—but today's risk environment requires organizations to look beyond their immediate vendors. Look Beyond Tier-One Suppliers A supplier may appear reliable while depending on subcontractors or materials from vulnerable regions. Understanding those indirect dependencies can reveal risks that aren't visible from the primary supplier relationship. Organizations should identify critical suppliers and ask which suppliers those companies depend on. Build Supply Chain Alternatives Before You Need Them Supplier diversification isn't necessarily a cost-optimization strategy. Sometimes paying to maintain secondary or tertiary suppliers is the price of ensuring continuity. Organizations should evaluate primary, secondary, and tertiary options and understand what it will take to activate those alternatives before a disruption occurs. Create an Emergency Governance Process Strong governance matters, but lengthy internal approval processes can become liabilities during a crisis. Companies need a clearly defined exception or emergency process that allows teams to move quickly when supply is threatened—without abandoning appropriate oversight. Bring Compliance Into Procurement Earlier Trade compliance shouldn't first become involved when goods arrive at the port. Procurement and compliance can collaborate earlier on supplier vetting, product descriptions, HTS classification, special declarations, country-of-origin considerations, and other information that can affect landed cost and clearance. Getting that information right at the purchase-order stage can reduce downstream delays and improve consistency across commercial and shipping documentation. Key Takeaways • Identify your critical suppliers—and understand which third parties those suppliers depend on. • Build primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing strategies before disruption forces you to react. • Don't optimize solely for price. Supplier capacity, resilience, geography, transportation, compliance, and continuity all affect the true cost of sourcing. • Create an emergency governance or exception process so procurement can respond quickly when critical supply is threatened. • Bring trade compliance into procurement decisions earlier, particularly around supplier vetting, product descriptions, HTS classification, country of origin, and special declarations. • Review critical supply-chain risks regularly because suppliers, subcontractors, tariffs, transportation routes, and geopolitical conditions can change. • Evaluate the cost of maintaining alternative suppliers against the operational and financial impact of losing a critical source. Resources & Mentions • Global Training Center • Focal Point • Anders Lillevik - LinkedIn Credits Host: Lalo Solorzano Andy Shiles Guest(s): Anders Lillevik - LinkedIn Producer: Lalo Solorzano

Most conversations about starting a systems integrator skip the parts that sink people. Dave and Vlad spend this one on insurance, licenses and procurement.After a month of founder interviews, Dave and Vlad close the series with their own experience. Vlad started at plant level with Procter and Gamble and Kraft Heinz, deciding how outside integrators would execute, before crossing over to work for an integrator across food and beverage and CPG packaging. Dave came from aviation and aerospace through a German machine builder and a distributor, then ran a small integration company doing MES, OEE and track and trace. Both reached the same conclusion. Integration starts after the requirements are written, so you quote to a spec and a budget, build the thing, and real handover rarely follows.Blame does not sit in one place. Vlad puts it plainly: people resent a solution that has not actually solved something for them. But end users say they do not need training and ask for the lowest number, and training is the first line cut. Dave counters that if a customer wants five dashboards on an ugly six inch HMI that has sat in the plant for fifteen years, that is the job. Vlad's answer is that your time is finite, and a year on work you cannot show anyone positions you as the person who does that work.The technical centerpiece is a migration that sounds nearly free. Moving from RSView 32 to FactoryTalk View gets justified because conversion tools exist. Then come the undocumented Visual Basic scripts written around tag limits on old controllers, which no conversion tool touches. Then the PLCs will not support the new terminals and servers, so the controllers go too. Then the networks underneath, often Data Highway Plus. Then servers, remote racks, IO, sensors and drives. Vlad argues these decisions get made by people who never price the second and third order effects.An integration firm is a service firm, billing time and materials or a fixed fee, with a markup on hardware and software. Vlad quotes roughly $200 a month for $2 million of liability coverage, a capable laptop, and software licenses reaching tens of thousands of dollars per seat without preferential pricing, usually several across PLC and HMI programming. Then procurement, which nobody warns new integrators about. Dave has cleared it in twenty minutes and has waited seven months, three or four of those with lawyers arguing over a master service agreement.Vlad closes on complexity. Industrial equipment no longer ships with a full schematic and a six dollar replacement sensor, so ramp up time climbs while the population who understand electrical, mechanical and process together shrinks as the best of them retire. Dave sees it from the other side. Entry now takes an LLC, a laptop and a phone, and he expects private equity to keep buying medium and large integrators over the next five years.Timestamps0:00 Introduction10:30 Vlad and Dave's paths into integration18:40 Why integrators start after the requirements are written23:40 Who is to blame when training gets cut30:00 RSView 32 migrations and the hidden cascade36:40 Choosing where you sit on the integration spectrum42:20 How integrators make money and what it costs to start48:40 Procurement and getting paid53:10 The future of integration and rising complexity1:01:40 Career advice1:13:20 The industrial app marketplaceReferencesThe Little Red Book of Selling by Jeffrey Gitomer: https://www.amazon.com/Little-Red-Book-Selling-Principles/dp/0743572548Influence, New and Expanded by Robert Cialdini: https://www.amazon.com/Influence-New-Expanded-Psychology-Persuasion/dp/0062937650About Your HostsVladimir Romanov is a co-host of The Manufacturing Hub Podcast and the founder of Joltek, an independent manufacturing and industrial automation consulting firm specializing in modernization strategy, digital transformation, and workforce development. Joltek works with manufacturers and investors to de-risk modernization and build the internal capability to sustain results.Connect with Vlad: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vladromanov/Want to go deeper? Vlad and the team at Joltek have covered related topics here:System Integrators: https://www.joltek.com/blog/system-integratorsRockwell PLC Lifecycle and Migration Guide: https://www.joltek.com/blog/rockwell-plc-lifecycle-migration-guideDave Griffith is a co-host of The Manufacturing Hub Podcast and founder of Capelin Solutions, an industrial automation firm helping manufacturers adopt smart manufacturing technology. He brings 15 years of experience in industrial automation and digital transformation.Connect with Dave: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davegriffith23/Subscribe to Manufacturing Hub: https://www.manufacturinghub.liveLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/manufacturing-hub-networkYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ManufacturingHub

"The earlier you can catch risk, the cheaper it is to solve." - Matthew Spencer, Founder of FlockScore Procurement teams have access to plenty of information when evaluating a new supplier, from certifications and financials to technical capabilities. What they often lack is visibility into a more practical question: How does this supplier actually perform? In this episode of Art of Procurement's Startup of the Week, we talk with Matthew Spencer, Co-Founder and CEO of FlockScore, a platform building a collective intelligence layer for supplier decisions by bringing together anonymized, real-world supplier performance data. Matthew shares the experience that led him to start FlockScore, why he believes external supplier performance data can help procurement make faster and more confident decisions, and how the platform is designed to complement the supplier data companies already have. Listen to this episode to hear: -Why internal supplier scorecards only provide part of the performance picture -How peer performance data can help procurement evaluate new and alternative suppliers -Why supply chain volatility is increasing the need for faster supplier qualification -How FlockScore combines anonymized peer data with AI-generated supplier signals -How earlier visibility into issues such as supplier capacity can help teams respond before disruption reaches their own operations Links: Matthew Spencer on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewjspencer1?originalSubdomain=be  Visit FlockScore's Profile in the AOP Provider Directory: https://artofprocurement.com/provider-directory/flockscore  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

This week's episode covers a Pentagon directive on supplier cost and pricing, GSA's announcement about suspected procurement fraud, a federal court ruling in the Anthropic case, a new class deviation overhauling Cost Accounting Standards thresholds, and SBA's proposed restructuring of small business size standards, and is hosted by Peter Eyre and Yuan Zhou. Crowell & Moring's “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without.

What if waste wasn't just a sustainability issue but one of your organization's biggest business opportunities? In this episode, IFMA's Director of Knowledge and Insights, Dr. Matt Tucker, is joined by Hélène Carpentier, the founder of Circular Workplaces, to explore why the future of facility management is circular. Together, they discuss how culture influences waste, why procurement is one of the most powerful drivers of circularity, and how facility managers can reduce costs while improving workplace experiences. Timestamps: 0:00 - Why FM can disrupt the waste industry 1:30 - Meet Hélène Carpentier and Circular Workplaces 3:00 - How culture shapes waste around the world 5:00 - Why developed countries create more workplace waste 6:00 - The hidden cost of "throwaway" culture 7:30 - Why Hélène founded Circular Workplaces 9:00 - The business case for circular economy 10:00 - Why waste is part of the workplace experience 11:00 - Why circularity is already in FM's DNA 12:00 - How FM can disrupt the waste industry 13:00 - Why the "Netflix of FM" matters 14:00 - From ownership to services: A new FM model 15:00 - Why procurement is the key to circular FM 16:00 - The coffee cup example every FM should hear 17:00 - Looking beyond waste to transform operations 18:00 - The Circular Workplaces framework 19:00 - Why doing nothing could cost £1.6 million 20:00 - Waste is your biggest operational inefficiency Connect with Us:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ifmaFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/InternationalFacilityManagementAssociation/Twitter: https://twitter.com/IFMAInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/ifma_hq/YouTube: https://youtube.com/ifmaglobalVisit us at https://ifma.org

"If you want a seat at the table, you've got to pull up the chair." - Polly DeSouza, APAC Transformation Leader Procurement teams have spent years talking about the need to move away from tactical and transactional work and create more time for strategic priorities. As AI begins to take on more of that work, the opportunity to finally make the shift is growing. The question is whether procurement teams are ready to take advantage of it. In this episode, Philip Ideson is joined by Polly DeSouza, an APAC transformation leader whose career spans finance, procurement, consulting, and operational transformation. Polly shares lessons from working across more than 20 transformation projects and explains why successful transformation requires procurement to think beyond processes and technology. They discuss what procurement can learn from finance, why teams need to understand the language of the business, and how strong stakeholder relationships can help procurement earn earlier involvement in business decisions. Polly also explains why she sees procurement as a "guardian of resilience," responsible for creating supplier ecosystems capable of supporting the business through continued uncertainty. In this episode, Polly discusses how to: -Connect procurement priorities more directly to financial and business value -Earn earlier involvement by becoming a trusted partner to stakeholders -Strengthen procurement's role in organizational resilience -Use AI-created capacity to tackle higher-value priorities -Help teams move beyond familiar ways of working -Build transformation around clear business problems and desired outcomes -Develop the skills and mindset needed for procurement's next chapter   Links: Polly Desouza on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pollyana-desouza-52304a85/  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

"It's more the translation of visibility. It's not so much visibility. Visibility is there, but it's what do you do with that?" - Mike Prorock, CEO, Tradeverifyd Supply chain risk has become both more complex and harder to anticipate. Geopolitical shifts, regulatory changes, multi-tier supplier dependencies, and an overwhelming volume of data are forcing procurement teams to look further into their supply chains and make decisions faster when something changes. In this episode of the ProcureTech Insider, Jim Cahalan speaks with Mike Prorock, CEO of Tradeverifyd, for a Provider of the Week discussion about turning supply chain visibility into timely, actionable decisions. Drawing on Tradeverifyd's roots in machine learning, global risk intelligence, and cross-border trade data, Mike explains why simply seeing risk isn't enough. Procurement teams need to understand what a disruption actually means to their business, determine what requires action, and focus their attention on the handful of decisions that matter most. In this episode, Mike also covers how to: -Look deeper into multi-tier supply chains to uncover hidden dependencies and potential bottlenecks -Combine external intelligence, internal business data, and emerging signals while protecting sensitive company information -Translate supply chain visibility into prioritized actions rather than overwhelming teams with alerts -Use AI agents to analyze changing conditions, explore potential responses, and reduce the manual work required to chase down data   Links: Mike Prorock on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mprorock/  Visit the Tradeverifyd profile in the AOP Provider Directory: https://artofprocurement.com/provider-directory/tradeverifyd  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

Senate Majority Leader John Thune joins The Brian Kilmeade Show to discuss the ongoing U.S.-Canada trade tensions, the strategic use of tariffs, and the impact on American agricultural producers. Senator Thune also shares his concerns regarding recent Pentagon leadership shakeups, the urgent need for defense procurement reform, and the geopolitical battle for AI dominance against China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"Don't ask AI to do something that you don't know how to do yourself." - Gretchen Vance, Vice President Procurement at Forest Lawn Parks and Mortuaries Procurement transformation often comes down to a leader's willingness to push for change, even when the path forward requires taking a risk. For Gretchen Vance, Vice President of Procurement at Forest Lawn Parks and Mortuaries, that once meant putting two pieces of paper on her CFO's desk: a proposal for an e-procurement system and her resignation. In this episode, Philip Ideson speaks with Gretchen about the transformation she has led during her 18 years at Forest Lawn, from digitizing a previously paper-based purchasing function to taking responsibility for the full procure-to-pay process. She shares how procurement supports Forest Lawn's deeply service-oriented mission and why that same commitment to service shapes the suppliers her team chooses to work with. Gretchen also offers a practical perspective on AI. Her team is already using it to analyze data, support RFQs, and streamline contract reviews, but she is clear that procurement professionals still need the knowledge and judgment to recognize when an AI-generated answer is wrong. She discusses why digitization and good data matter, how bringing procurement and AP together can strengthen supplier relationships, and what it takes to lead people through continued change. In this episode, Gretchen also explains how to: -Build supplier relationships around shared culture and purpose -Position procurement as a problem-solving partner to the business -Use AI to save time without sacrificing human expertise and judgment -Create a strong data foundation for digitization and AI -Connect procurement and AP to improve the end-to-end supplier experience -Take calculated risks when meaningful transformation requires leadership commitment -Embrace continuous learning and change as a procurement leader   Links: Gretchen Vance on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gretchen-vance-cpsm-6869794a/  Subscribe to the AOP Newsletter: https://resources.artofprocurement.com/art-of-procurement-podcast-subscribe  Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtofProcurement   

The False Claims Act sets a maximum penalty near $28,000 for each false invoice submitted to the government, and those penalties are tripled and stack on every claim, which is how a routine billing dispute becomes a multi-million-dollar case. Nick Peterson, counsel at Wiley Rein and a former FAA special agent, breaks down how whistleblower suits get filed under seal, why data miners now drive nearly half of these cases, and the exact moments a government contractor is most exposed. What you'll learn in this episode: - How the False Claims Act penalty of roughly $28,000 per invoice gets tripled and stacked into a large case - Why a qui tam whistleblower can collect 15 to 30 percent of the government's recovery, and how cases stay sealed for years - The set-aside size standard mistake that turns a contract you already won into a fraud allegation, and when you must disclose - How affiliation rules pull a private-equity owner's other companies into your small-business determination - Why data miners now file close to half of all whistleblower cases, and what DOJ's new invitation to them means for contractors Chapters: 0:00 - False Claims Act breaking news on DOJ and data miners 4:00 - False Claims Act explained, from the Civil War Lincoln Law 6:00 - Qui tam whistleblowers and the 15 to 30 percent reward 7:00 - The $28,000 per-claim penalty and treble damages 17:00 - Procurement fraud, bid rigging, and ghost bids 26:00 - Set-aside size standards and the duty to disclose 31:00 - Cases under seal for years and the real cost to defend 40:00 - DOJ's new national fraud enforcement task forces Mindy gives you the federal opportunities, agency signals, recompete intel, and pursuit briefs that tell you not just what contracts exist, but which ones to chase and how to win them. Sign up for free Daily Alerts and get opportunities delivered to your inbox before the day starts.