The supplier decision
Should we approve this supplier? What do we still need to check? When should we review the decision?
A procurement team may have company records, certificates and external reports, yet still need to piece together an answer. The evidence can be old, incomplete or about a different site. A news alert can raise a concern without showing whether a particular supplier is affected.
I’m interested in helping the person making that decision understand what the evidence supports and where it falls short.
Our starting point
We’re developing ONYVEN around supplier assessment and ongoing risk monitoring.
Before approval, the product should help a team verify the company and relevant site, review documents and external findings, and record the reasons for a decision. After approval, it should help them see what has changed and what needs follow-up.
The two should share the same supplier record. Information collected during qualification should still be useful when the next issue appears.
See an example of the workflow
Start with the source.
A company record identifies the supplier. A certificate names the company, but its coverage of the operating site is unclear.
Keep the source and its scope together.Make the supported facts clear.
The company name matches the record. That supports the entity match. It does not yet establish whether the certificate covers the site you will buy from.
Be precise about what the evidence supports.The name matches the company record.
The document names the company.
Give uncertainty a place.
The operating site still needs to be checked against the certificate. Keeping that question visible helps the buyer understand what remains unresolved.
An open question should remain an open question.Does this certificate cover the operating site?
Make the next step useful.
Request evidence covering the relevant site. Record the reason for the request, then revisit the assessment when the evidence arrives.
A clear next action, with the reasoning attached.Request site-specific evidence.
An example of the workflow we’re developing. Supplier A and its documents are illustrative.
The opportunity I see
AI can help interpret documents and connect information that would otherwise take a person time to work through. The difficult part is keeping each finding tied to the right company, source and date.
Over time, I want the supplier record to show what the team knew, why it made a decision and what happened next. That history could make each subsequent review more useful.
This is a hypothesis we’re testing. The value needs to show up in the quality of the review, the time it takes and whether people keep using the product.
What I bring to it
I grew up helping in a manufacturing and trading business, then studied computer engineering at Özyeğin University and Informatics at TUM. I also gained professional experience at Intel.
My earlier recruiting venture was selected for EXIST support. Later work in logistics taught me to take data access, integration and the buying process seriously from the beginning.
At ONYVEN, I work with founding engineer Oğuzhan Yetimoğlu. We’re using those lessons to start with a specific procurement problem and understand it in detail.
What we’re testing
We’re building and validating the product. Three questions guide the work:
- Does an assessment help a buyer make a better decision and explain it?
- Can the team use it within its existing approval process without too much setup?
- Will they return for further reviews and pay for the outcome?
I’d like to meet investors who understand enterprise software and procurement, especially across Germany and Türkiye.
Discuss ONYVEN with me