Conflict-Proof AMS: Multi-Vendor Reality Without Blame Games

{
  "id": "ams-037",
  "title": "Conflict-Proof AMS: Multi-Vendor Reality Without Blame Games",
  "hook": "Conflicts in SAP AMS don’t come from bad people. They come from unclear boundaries, mixed incentives, and missing evidence.",
  "idea": "Modern AMS is designed to survive friction: multiple vendors, internal teams, client pressure, audits, and money. Responsibility is defined by contracts, signals, and facts — not by who shouts first.",
  "multi_vendor_reality": {
    "typical_conflicts": [
      "‘It’s not our system’ escalation loops",
      "Vendors optimizing their SLA at the expense of flow stability",
      "Internal IT absorbing vendor-caused pain silently",
      "Client pushing urgency without accepting risk",
      "Access disputes during incidents (‘we need prod access now’)"
    ],
    "root_cause": "Ambiguous ownership + weak evidence + misaligned incentives"
  },
  "responsibility_model": {
    "principle": "Ownership follows the failure mode, not the org chart.",
    "layers": [
      {
        "layer": "Business Flow Ownership",
        "owns": "End-to-end outcome (OTC/P2P/RTR availability and impact)",
        "note": "Cannot be outsourced fully"
      },
      {
        "layer": "System Ownership",
        "owns": "SAP core behavior, config, custom code",
        "note": "Clear boundary of what is ‘inside SAP’"
      },
      {
        "layer": "Interface Ownership",
        "owns": "Contracts, mappings, retries, latency, error handling",
        "note": "Upstream/downstream explicitly named"
      },
      {
        "layer": "Execution Ownership",
        "owns": "Who acts now, who decides, who communicates",
        "note": "Single accountable owner per incident"
      }
    ]
  },
  "vendor_boundary_rules": [
    "Every vendor owns a clearly defined surface (systems, flows, interfaces).",
    "No shared tables, no shared silent logic, no undocumented dependencies.",
    "If two vendors touch the same flow, the flow owner arbitrates — not email chains.",
    "Escalation without evidence is rejected and returned with a checklist."
  ],
  "conflict_resolution_protocol": {
    "step_1": "Stabilize the business (workaround or rollback).",
    "step_2": "Establish a single timeline with facts only.",
    "step_3": "Map failure to ownership layer (flow/system/interface).",
    "step_4": "Assign fix owner and dependency owners explicitly.",
    "step_5": "Open Problem if recurrence risk exists — no silent closure."
  },
  "evidence_over_opinion": {
    "accepted_evidence": [
      "Logs, timestamps, IDs, signal breaches",
      "Change and deployment history",
      "Replication and queue metrics",
      "Clear before/after comparison"
    ],
    "rejected_arguments": [
      "‘It always worked before’",
      "‘We didn’t change anything’",
      "‘This is business data’ without proof"
    ]
  },
  "access_governance_under_pressure": {
    "rules": [
      "No permanent access granted during incidents.",
      "Emergency access is time-boxed, logged, and reviewed.",
      "Access follows task ownership, not vendor rank.",
      "If access is repeatedly needed, redesign roles — don’t speed approvals."
    ],
    "incident_access_pack": [
      "What access is needed",
      "For which system/client",
      "For which action",
      "For how long",
      "Who approves and who reviews after"
    ]
  },
  "commercial_model_alignment": {
    "bad_models": [
      "Pay per ticket closed",
      "SLA-only penalties without prevention incentives",
      "Flat fees ignoring instability drivers"
    ],
    "modern_models": [
      "Base fee + stability incentives",
      "Penalties for repeat incidents and regressions",
      "Credits for eliminated demand drivers",
      "Shared bonus for cross-vendor problem elimination"
    ],
    "payment_rules": [
      "No payment disputes without evidence pack.",
      "Disputed incidents are tagged and reviewed monthly, not argued daily.",
      "Prevention work is explicitly funded and protected."
    ]
  },
  "coordination_cadence": {
    "operational": [
      "Daily triage with all vendors on shared signals",
      "Clear owner per issue — visible to all"
    ],
    "tactical": [
      "Weekly review of cross-vendor incidents and dependencies",
      "Problem backlog shared and prioritized jointly"
    ],
    "strategic": [
      "Monthly scorecard: stability, repeats, coordination cost",
      "Quarterly contract and boundary recalibration"
    ]
  },
  "automation": {
    "copilot_moves": [
      "Assemble neutral evidence packs automatically.",
      "Detect recurring cross-vendor blame patterns.",
      "Attribute delay to dependency vs execution time.",
      "Suggest boundary or contract fixes when conflicts repeat."
    ],
    "outputs": [
      "Responsibility map per incident",
      "Vendor dependency heatmap",
      "Dispute-ready evidence dossier"
    ]
  },
  "why_this_prevents_conflict": [
    "Facts replace narratives.",
    "Ownership is explicit before pressure hits.",
    "Money aligns with stability, not noise.",
    "Access becomes controlled, not political."
  ],
  "anti_patterns_to_kill": [
    "‘Joint responsibility’ without a single owner",
    "Unlimited emergency access",
    "Email wars instead of timelines",
    "Paying for firefighting instead of prevention"
  ],
  "metrics_that_expose_maturity": [
    "Cross-vendor incident resolution time",
    "Disputed incidents ratio",
    "Repeat incidents crossing the same boundary",
    "Emergency access frequency and duration",
    "Prevention work funded vs executed"
  ],
  "design_question": [
    "If three vendors are involved tomorrow, do we know exactly who decides, who acts, and who pays?"
  ],
  "meta": {
    "schema": "dkharlanau.dataset.byte",
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "dataset": "ams",
    "source_project": "cv-ai",
    "source_path": "ams/ams-037.json",
    "generated_at_utc": "2026-02-03T14:33:32+00:00",
    "creator": {
      "name": "Dzmitryi Kharlanau",
      "role": "SAP Lead",
      "website": "https://dkharlanau.github.io",
      "linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/dkharlanau"
    },
    "attribution": {
      "attribution_required": true,
      "preferred_citation": "Dzmitryi Kharlanau (SAP Lead). Dataset bytes: https://dkharlanau.github.io"
    },
    "license": {
      "name": "",
      "spdx": "",
      "url": ""
    },
    "links": {
      "website": "https://dkharlanau.github.io",
      "linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/dkharlanau"
    },
    "contact": {
      "preferred": "linkedin",
      "linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/dkharlanau"
    },
    "canonical_url": "https://dkharlanau.github.io/datasets/ams/ams-037.json",
    "created_at_utc": "2026-02-03T14:33:32+00:00",
    "updated_at_utc": "2026-02-03T15:29:02+00:00",
    "provenance": {
      "source_type": "chat_export_extraction",
      "note": "Extracted and curated by Dzmitryi Kharlanau; enriched for attribution and crawler indexing."
    },
    "entity_type": "ams_byte",
    "entity_subtype": "",
    "summary": "Conflicts in SAP AMS don’t come from bad people. They come from unclear boundaries, mixed incentives, and missing evidence."
  }
}