Technically Speaking

Let’s just start with a dictionary definition, which is:

Both 1 and 2 are valid definitions, but don’t really have much to do, per se, with where this article is heading (spoiler alert). 4 is a bit like 3, sort of. So, let’s just go with 3 as our focus definition. Specifically, lets focus on 3.b, which is effectively the same as 3.a, but specific to data formatting in communication systems.

Let’s try to summarize the definition in 3.b. How about this?:

A protocol is a well-defined process for data sharing.

Are we good with that? If not, I fail. And you should save yourself the time of reading any further. If we are, let’s keep it going. After all, the purpose of this article is not to link to a definition of a word on the internet and try to simplify one of its definitions (You’re welcome). Let’s just accept my attempt as decent.

Really?! A Well-defined Process for Data Sharing? Forgive Me, But…When Moon?!

Okay, so maybe it doesn’t sound sexy. ‘Protocol’ is not one of those words that comes to mind, when you think of buzz words. Then, clearly, it isn’t worth knowing. If it was something to know about, you would already know about it, right? Why haven’t I seen this (see below) on the internet yet?

Remember this.

Many of the things in business are not sexy at all. Many are even quite miserable. In fact, you might be able to say the more miserable, the more necessary they are. If they weren’t absolutely necessary, because they are miserable, they would have been gladly done away with by now.

Are Protocols Necessary?

No. They are not. There are likely some protocols (formal or informal, or maybe even poorly defined) for various sector-specific supply chains. It only makes sense that, businesses that engage often have figured out an acceptable means of doing business and communicating with each other. Protocols, however, are not necessary.

If Protocols Aren’t Necessary, What’s the Motivation for Adoption?

Example 1: No Protocol

Let’s imagine a supply chain with various participants, without a protocol. Everyone is doing what they believe to be the proper form; they trade with the people they receive from and the people they ship to, and everything seems fine.

Now, let’s say some business — one right in the middle of this supply chain — goes out of business. No big deal. There are substitutes all over the world that offer similar services. There’s just one problem. Even if the substitute business really wants to jump in and fill the need, they don’t know how to effectively communicate up or down the chain.

Fine. Still nothing new here. Businesses have had to educate new supply chain participants on how they do things since forever, and it can be done. Oh, but the time it takes, the headaches, the faux pas, etc. So much time and money being spent, trying to get this business caught up.

Example 2: Supply Chain-specific Protocol

Now, let’s imagine everything I just described above happens again, except the supply has a protocol specific to their supply chain. Great! Everything is formalized and written down for the substitute business to read and implement. But, wait… isn’t this pretty much the same problem they were having in the previous example? Maybe the already-active supply chain participants can save some time educating the substitute business by instructing them to refer to the documentation, but really not a lot is different. The transition will take time, and the ability for the supply chain participants to remain hands-off rests on excellent documentation (which is actually very hard to find).

Example 3: Universal Supply Chain Protocol

Once more… all the same scenarios… except the substitute business knows and uses the very same protocol as is used in the supply chain their new business opportunity uses. Now what? They simply integrate seamlessly into the new supply chain with no time lost.

If this doesn’t resemble your reflection in the mirror, you need to spend some time to consider more carefully what I just said. It is so elegantly profound an aspiration that, its implications are unimaginable.

One Protocol to Rule Them All

Remember, we said a protocol is a well-defined process for sharing data. Our definition allows for the possibility of many protocols; we said nothing about a protocol needing to be singular. Also, we just discussed (example 2: Supply Chain-specific Protocol) that, if the protocol is used by some and not by others, it has a limited effect. So, what does this mean?

Many protocols can be proposed and presented as being the best but, in the end, there needs to be a single protocol. As we also discussed (Example 3: Universal Supply Chain Protocol), the more universally-adopted the protocol, the better for businesses currently in the supply chain and businesses entering the supply chain.

In short, there really needs to be a single protocol.

Only One Protocol? Who Gets to Pick?

It’s really a numbers game.

Source:Kinesis

The more users adopting a protocol, the more likely it is to become the protocol. I forgot; you wanted to know who gets to pick, not how the protocol gets picked. Well, that’s easy.

The business(es) that command(s) more businesses than the rest — by market influence — to use the protocol is the entity that decides.

Imagine a company like Wal-Mart demanding that suppliers to their stores adopt and use a protocol in order to remain a supplier. Whether the suppliers to Wal-Mart liked it or not, they wouldn’t have much choice. This would cause a ripple effect through the entirety of Wal-Mart’s supply chain, and very quickly there would be many adopters of the protocol.

So, even though it is a numbers game, it really is an economic influence game.

Wait, Aren’t We Talking About OriginTrail’s Protocol Though?

Yes. We are. But, before we get into specifics, let’s review:

A protocol is a well-defined process for sharing data.

Protocols exist for a reason.

Protocols aren’t necessary, but they do allow seamless supply chain migration in real-time.

The adoption of a single protocol is both most valuable and inevitable, if the protocol is successful.

The more people using the protocol, the more likely the protocol will be adopted; successful protocol adoption resembles the network effect.

The entities with the most influence get to decide which protocol is chosen.

I could have saved you so much time, if I had just pasted these bullet points, but where’s the fun in that? So, back to OriginTrail. Maybe you have seen this?

The Trace Alliance, What Is It?

Notice the last word, there?

What Does It All Mean?

To me…I think the Trace Alliance is a collaborative effort to define and standardize a supply chain protocol. Correction: not a protocol, but the protocol for supply chains management. To do this, the OriginTrail team are inviting broad and diverse participation, in an effort to define the universal supply chain protocol. Essentially, they are putting it to the business leaders, supply chain experts, and other experienced businesses to join in an effort to describe the ideal protocol.

That’s Great But, Like You Said, They Need Heavy Influencers, If They Want To Gain Adoption. What If No Serious Companies Join The Trace Alliance?

While it is true the Trace Alliance members list has not yet been revealed to the public, there is something to consider in anticipation.

As I stated in the beginning……