Dataset entry
Vendor Segmentation & Operating Boundaries: How to Run Multi-Vendor AMS Cleanly
Multi-vendor AMS only works when boundaries are real: defined surfaces, measurable contracts, controlled access, and a single arbitration layer.
Attribution
Creator: Dzmitryi Kharlanau (SAP Lead).
Canonical: https://dkharlanau.github.io/datasets/ams/ams-046.json
JSON (copy / reuse)
{
"id": "ams-046",
"title": "Vendor Segmentation & Operating Boundaries: How to Run Multi-Vendor AMS Cleanly",
"hook": "Multi-vendor AMS only works when boundaries are real: defined surfaces, measurable contracts, controlled access, and a single arbitration layer.",
"idea": "Modern AMS runs vendors like components in a system. Each vendor owns a surface area with inputs/outputs, SLOs, and evidence rules. Disputes are resolved by timeline + contract, not by politics.",
"vendor_models": {
"single_prime": {
"description": "One prime vendor owns end-to-end AMS; others are subcontractors.",
"best_for": "When you want one throat to choke and strong governance exists.",
"risk": "Prime may hide root causes or squeeze subs; lock-in increases."
},
"tower_model": {
"description": "Vendors split by towers (SAP core, integrations, data, security, infra).",
"best_for": "Large landscapes with clear technical separations.",
"risk": "Flow issues cross towers; arbitration is mandatory."
},
"flow_pods_model": {
"description": "Vendors aligned to business flows (OTC/P2P/RTR) + shared reliability pod.",
"best_for": "When business outcomes matter more than module purity.",
"risk": "Requires mature flow ownership on the client side."
}
},
"boundary_artifacts": {
"responsibility_matrix": {
"name": "RACI+SLO Map",
"must_define": [
"Flow owner (client-side)",
"System owner (SAP core)",
"Interface owner (upstream/downstream)",
"Execution owner (incident/change)"
],
"rule": "Every critical flow must have exactly one flow owner."
},
"interface_contract": {
"must_define": [
"Success criteria (latency, volume, error rate)",
"Retry and compensation rules",
"Logging and evidence standards",
"Escalation path with timeboxes"
]
},
"change_surface": {
"must_define": [
"What each vendor can change (objects, configs, code zones)",
"What requires joint approval",
"Freeze windows and error budget rules"
]
}
},
"access_rules": {
"principles": [
"Least privilege always",
"Time-boxed elevated access",
"No permanent emergency access",
"Every access has intent, owner, and audit trail"
],
"practical_controls": [
"Role-based access per vendor surface",
"Break-glass access with auto-expiry",
"Segregation between approve and execute",
"Mandatory evidence pack for incident access"
]
},
"dispute_handling": {
"golden_rule": "Disputes are resolved by evidence timeline + boundary contract.",
"workflow": [
"Stabilize business first (workaround/rollback)",
"Create a shared incident timeline with evidence IDs",
"Map failure to layer (flow/system/interface/security)",
"Assign fix owner + dependency owners",
"Tag dispute status for monthly settlement (not daily war)"
],
"what_not_to_do": [
"Email storms",
"War calls without evidence",
"‘It’s your fault’ narratives"
]
},
"commercial_alignment": {
"recommended_pricing": [
"Base fee (run) + prevention budget (improve) protected",
"Penalties for repeat incidents and change regressions",
"Credits for demand driver elimination and automation deflection",
"Shared bonus for cross-vendor systemic fixes"
],
"payment_rules": [
"No penalty without evidence pack and validated SLO breach",
"Separate dependency delay from execution delay",
"Dispute ledger reviewed monthly with client arbitration"
]
},
"coordination_operating_rhythm": {
"daily": [
"Shared triage with routing by symptom cluster and flow impact",
"Owner named, next action, next update time"
],
"weekly": [
"Cross-vendor dependency review",
"Problem elimination commitments (top demand drivers)"
],
"monthly": [
"Scorecard settlement: stability, repeats, regressions, disputes",
"Boundary tuning: where contracts are unclear"
],
"quarterly": [
"Re-tender surfaces if needed",
"Roadmap alignment and lock-in reduction review"
]
},
"metrics_that_make_boundaries_real": [
"Cross-vendor handovers per incident",
"Dependency wait time vs execution time",
"Repeat issues crossing the same boundary",
"Dispute count and aging",
"Emergency access usage by vendor"
],
"automation": {
"copilot_moves": [
"Auto-attribute incidents to boundaries using signals and objects.",
"Generate dispute-ready evidence dossiers.",
"Detect chronic boundary failures and suggest contract updates."
],
"outputs": [
"Boundary health heatmap",
"Vendor reliability scorecards",
"Dispute ledger summaries"
]
},
"design_question": [
"If two vendors blame each other tomorrow, can we prove responsibility in 10 minutes using contracts and evidence?"
],
"meta": {
"schema": "dkharlanau.dataset.byte",
"schema_version": "1.1",
"dataset": "ams",
"source_project": "cv-ai",
"source_path": "ams/ams-046.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-046.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": "Multi-vendor AMS only works when boundaries are real: defined surfaces, measurable contracts, controlled access, and a single arbitration layer."
}
}