Research Report SCC Subcontracting Buyer & Supplier Validation

NextGen SCC Subcontracting
Research Workshop

Findings from a multi-stakeholder validation workshop examining the subcontracting lifecycle from both buyer and supplier perspectives — identifying key pain points, infrastructure gaps, and a prioritized path forward.

Type Research Workshop Report
Lead Designer Kate Jie Yu
Participants 20+ Buyers & Suppliers
Published December 2025
20+
Issues Validated
4
Severity Tiers
3
Persona Groups
01 / 08

Workshop Background

The NextGen SCC Subcontracting Research Workshop was a collaborative, multi-stakeholder session designed to capture comprehensive insights from both buyer and supplier perspectives. The session used a structured approach to identify, categorize, and prioritize issues affecting the current subcontracting process.

Role: As Lead Designer, I worked closely with UX Researchers and Product Managers to design the workshop structure, facilitate cross-persona discussions, synthesize findings, and create a prioritized action framework. Insights from 20+ participants were synthesized in real-time using collaborative tools (Figma/Miro).

Participants & Format
Who Participated
Cross-Functional Stakeholders
Buyer representatives (procurement, contracts, compliance), supplier representatives (operations, finance, delivery), UX researchers, and subcontracting subject matter experts.
Session Format
Full-Day Hybrid Workshop
In-person and virtual participants. Interactive breakout sessions by persona, followed by collaborative synthesis and prioritization activities.
Workshop Process
1
Issue Identification & Collection
Participants shared pain points from their respective roles using sticky notes and collaborative boards. All issues were captured without filtering to ensure comprehensive coverage.
2
Cross-Persona Validation
Issues were reviewed across buyer and supplier groups to identify common themes, persona-specific challenges, and areas of misalignment between the two sides.
3
Severity Mapping & Categorization
Issues were categorized by severity (Severe, High Impact/Regulated, Moderate, Irritating) based on business impact, compliance risk, and user frustration levels.
4
Impact vs. Effort Prioritization
Issues were plotted on a 2×2 matrix (Quick Wins / Major Projects / Fill-Ins / Thankless Tasks) to guide sequencing and resource allocation.
5
Solution Ideation & Ownership
For high-priority items, the group brainstormed potential solutions, assigned team ownership, and established preliminary timelines for next steps.
02 / 08

What's Working Well

Before addressing gaps, the workshop identified foundational strengths the new design should preserve and build on.

Strength
Communication Channels
Established pathways between buyers and suppliers are functioning effectively and provide a working foundation.
Strength
Contract Framework
The basic contract structure provides a solid, recognized foundation for agreements across both sides.
Strength
Compliance Tracking
Core compliance requirements are being monitored and documented, even if the tooling is fragmented.
03 / 08

Key Gaps Identified

Four critical gaps consistently surfaced across buyer, supplier, and shared perspectives during the workshop.

# Gap Impact Affects
1 No real-time visibility into subcontractor performance and deliverables High Both
2 Manual data entry and duplicate documentation requirements High Both
3 Limited system integration between buyer and supplier tools High Both
4 Inconsistent onboarding processes across different subcontractors Moderate Buyers
04 / 08

Cross-Persona Analysis

The workshop revealed that buyer and supplier pain points differ in nature, but converge on a shared root cause: lack of a centralized collaboration platform.

Buyer Perspective
Visibility & Control Gaps
  • Need better visibility into supplier capacity and capabilities
  • Struggle managing multiple supplier relationships simultaneously
  • Require more efficient approval workflows
  • Want automated compliance monitoring
Supplier Perspective
Clarity & Burden Issues
  • Unclear expectations and requirements from buyers
  • Excessive documentation and reporting burden
  • Delayed payment processing
  • Limited communication on project status
Shared Concerns
Platform & Process Gaps
  • No centralized platform for collaboration
  • Version control issues with shared documents
  • Inefficient change request processes
  • Limited access to historical data
05 / 08

Issue Inventory by Severity

Issues were classified into four severity tiers based on business impact, compliance risk, and user frustration level.

Severe — Must Fix
IssueImpactAffects
No real-time project status updates High Both
Manual contract tracking and renewals High Buyers
Payment processing delays High Suppliers
High Impact, Regulated
IssueImpactAffects
Compliance documentation scattered across systems High Both
Audit trail gaps in approval workflows High Buyers
Moderate — Structural & Model Issues
IssueImpactAffects
Inconsistent data formats between systems Moderate Both
Limited search and filtering capabilities Moderate Buyers
Irritating — UX Friction
IssueImpactAffects
Repetitive form filling Low Suppliers
Unclear navigation in current tools Low Both
06 / 08

Impact vs. Effort Prioritization

Issues were plotted on a 2×2 matrix to determine sequencing. High-impact, low-effort items are candidates for immediate action; high-impact, high-effort items require planned investment.

High Impact · Low Effort
Quick Wins
  • Automated email notifications
  • Status tracking dashboard
  • Template library for common documents
High Impact · High Effort
Major Projects
  • Integrated platform development
  • AI-powered compliance monitoring
  • End-to-end workflow automation
Low Impact · Low Effort
Fill-Ins
  • UI improvements
  • Help documentation
  • Training videos
Low Impact · High Effort
Thankless Tasks
  • Legacy system migration
  • Custom reporting for edge cases
← Low Impact High Effort →
07 / 08

Ownership & Next Actions

Each high-priority item was assigned a team owner and timeline during the workshop. Status reflects the state at time of report generation.

Action Item Owner Timeline Status
Develop unified platform requirements Product Team Q2 2026 In Progress
Implement automated notifications Engineering Q2 2026 Planned
Create supplier onboarding templates Operations Q2 2026 Planned
Design compliance dashboard Product Team Q3 2026 Not Started
Conduct solution validation sessions UX Research Q3 2026 Not Started
08 / 08

Path Forward

The primary recommendation is a unified platform that addresses visibility gaps, automates manual processes, and provides real-time collaboration for both buyers and suppliers.

Phased Delivery Plan
Short-term · Q2 2026
Immediate Relief
  • Deploy quick wins: notifications, status dashboard, templates
  • Begin unified platform requirements gathering
  • Establish clear team ownership for each work stream
Medium-term · Q3–Q4 2026
Core Platform
  • Launch core platform features with iterative testing
  • Address all high-impact regulated issues
  • Validate solutions with real buyer and supplier users
Long-term · 2027+
Full Integration
  • Full platform integration across all systems
  • Advanced automation and AI-powered compliance
  • Continuous improvement loop from user feedback
Priority Considerations
Priority 1
Regulatory Compliance
Address all severe compliance-related issues first. These carry audit and legal risk that cannot be deferred regardless of implementation effort.
Priority 2
User Impact Breadth
Focus next on issues affecting the largest number of users or creating the most significant day-to-day operational friction.
Priority 3
Technical Feasibility
Balance quick wins against foundational infrastructure work. Quick wins build trust; foundational work enables everything that follows.
Priority 4
Business Value
Prioritize improvements that directly support revenue growth, cost reduction, or measurable reduction in administrative overhead.

After Next Steps: Schedule follow-up sessions with individual stakeholder groups to validate proposed solutions and refine requirements before platform development begins. Agreement was made and ownership assigned for each issue. PO, OC, and ASN team PM, Designer, and Engineer are all aligned on the timeline and have set priorities to begin iteration.