Companies moving away from SAP SNC have several choices for what comes next. There isn’t one right answer.
The best approach depends on what you use SNC for today, how your suppliers work with you, and how broadly you define supplier collaboration.
For most manufacturers, there are three practical paths:
1. EDI and direct integration
For companies with a relatively narrow SNC footprint—purchase orders, confirmations, ASNs and similar transactions—EDI or direct integration can be the simplest answer.
This is particularly attractive when suppliers already support EDI, RosettaNet or other established integration standards. Existing connections can often continue without introducing another supplier network.
The trade-off is that you are primarily replacing the transaction layer. Exceptions, negotiations, engineering, quality and other forms of collaboration may still require separate processes.
2. A supplier network such as SAP Business Network
A supplier network makes sense when standardized transactions are the primary requirement and many suppliers already participate in the network.
SAP Business Network, for example, provides a natural migration path for SAP customers and supports established processes such as purchase orders, confirmations, ship notices, invoicing and supply-chain collaboration.
Networks can be particularly attractive when a company also wants broader procurement capabilities and values having buyers and suppliers connected through a common ecosystem.
The consideration is scope: the more collaboration extends into company-specific engineering, quality, qualification and cross-functional processes, the more you need to evaluate how those requirements fit into the network and its surrounding applications.
3. A collaboration and orchestration layer
The third approach is to leave SAP as the transactional system of record and place a collaboration and orchestration layer over it.
This becomes attractive when supplier collaboration extends beyond standard transactions.
A contract manufacturer, for example, may interact with planning, procurement, engineering, quality and operations around forecasts, purchase orders, shortages, engineering changes, component qualification, first articles, PPAP, deviations, quality problems and production readiness.
Rather than forcing all of these interactions into predefined transaction types, an orchestration layer provides a common environment for suppliers and internal teams while keeping the resulting transactions synchronized with SAP.
You don’t necessarily have to choose one
In practice, a combination of these approaches can make the most sense.
A manufacturer might:
- use EDI or RosettaNet with large suppliers that can support direct system-to-system integration;
- use SAP Business Network/Ariba for indirect procurement or suppliers already participating in the network; and
- use a collaboration and orchestration layer for contract manufacturers or strategic direct-material suppliers where planning, engineering, quality and operations all need to participate.
The architecture can even vary by supplier. A high-volume supplier capable of EDI doesn’t necessarily need a portal for routine transactions, while another supplier may need a collaboration environment for the same process.
The objective isn’t to replace every SNC capability with a single technology. It is to determine which collaboration model fits each part of the supplier relationship best.
Where ZFlow Fits
ZFlow provides the third path: a collaboration and orchestration layer integrated with SAP ECC or S/4HANA.
It supports transactional processes such as PO collaboration, VMI, subcontracting, ASN and receipts alongside broader processes including supplier development, PPAP, supplier quality, performance, engineering and cost collaboration.
ZFlow can therefore replace SNC where appropriate, but it doesn’t require manufacturers to abandon EDI, supplier networks or other approaches that are already working.
Case Study: How ZFlow Supports Contract Manufacturer Collaboration in High-tech Manufacturing