Future single B2B market or technology game?
Hi, Habr! Today we are sharing an interview with the director of digital technologies at RTS-Tender, which organizes electronic trading using the blockchain, machine learning and big data analysis. We will ask about all aspects of the business, and most importantly - about the technical part. Join now. Well, under the cut - text version.
Dmitry Zavalishin is a Russian programmer, author of the concept of OS Phantom, organizer and member of the OS Day conference program committee, founder of the DZ Systems group of companies. In 1990–2000 he took an active part in the creation of the Russian segments of the Internet (Relcom) and Fidonet, in particular, ensured the transparent interaction of these networks. In 2000-2004, he was responsible for the design, development and development of the Yandex company portal, created the Yandex.Guru service (hereinafter Yandex.Market). You can read more on the Wiki .
Vladimir Grigorenko was born in 1969 in Brody, Lviv region. In 2013, he completed internships at North Easten University (Boston, USA) and at Aoyama Business School (Tokyo, Japan). From the same year, he began working for the RTS-tender company as Deputy General Director. At the moment, Vladimir is working as a director of digital technology at RTS-tender.
Vladimir, the word blockchain is now at the hearing and everyone says different things about him. There are positive connotations, there are negative connotations. It is so, a little bit, flecked bazvord veil, which is used in the case and not in the case. We have already discussed with you that blockchain is actively used in technologies of your company. Can you briefly say what business value a company sells to the market and where is the blockchain in this business value?
Well, first of all, I want to point out that I absolutely agree with your position that today, both in context and not in context, this buzzword is used, as the youth say “on the hype”. But we are practitioners, we solve specific practical business problems. I will make one amendment that we are not talking about the RTS-Tender company as simply about a company that participates, conducts, actually provides procurement for government orders, we are talking about a group of companies. And the tasks that we solve are the tasks of the group.
From here, accordingly, this business need was born to close some technological problem in the group on the exchange of key information, on the counterparties. This, in principle, of course, is due to the regulatory regime that we have in the group of companies, because on the one hand we have a very regulated government order, on the other hand we have absolutely commercial tasks, because we are a commercial company. And this, in principle, necessitated the use of this technology in the group.
That is, your main client is, in fact, government procurement, which, on the one hand, put up a tender on your site, on the other hand, these are suppliers who are fighting for these contracts. Is this the main landscape?
This is the main landscape, yes. This is a global B2B market. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, perhaps it is precisely the state order and the procurement of state-owned companies - this is probably the largest B2B market in Russia today, which, in principle, if well developed, then it can probably turn the economy around so to speak.
Interestingly, with this position, no one has yet come to you in my memory, so this matter has not been voiced. What is really the structure of the state order, the structure that is built around the FZ-44, it is a B2B market. And it is very interesting, in fact. Yes, if you look at the turnover, it is obviously the largest in the country.
On the other hand, if you take the traditional market landscapes, then they present not only the bidding platform itself, where the supplier and the buyer are fighting for the price, but around this there is also some kind of infrastructure, navigation. For me, for example, as a supplier, it would be interesting to see, and who buys the things that I produce. And in the opposite direction, probably, the buyer would be interested in expanding his circle of ideas about sellers. Is there anything on this subject in your picture of the world?
Of course, there is, simply commenting on the thesis that this is the first time you hear such a position, I suggest just to look at any supplier in your terminology, and in our terminology we call him a “participant”. That is, any participant who comes to us or who is thinking of coming is an ordinary commercial supplier who can work not within the framework of a government order, either. Yes, we have 250 thousand suppliers who, with some frequency, do something in this market.
If you look at it simply as a commercial company, which in order to offer something, conducts some of its activities, including it must provide itself with something: to purchase components, services, and so on, and so on. , and so on. Then, perhaps, this position becomes clear. And our goal today is to work with the participants, as we call them, in order to draw them into our landscape, into our ecosystem, so that it will come to us and, in principle, all of our business tasks could would be there to decide, yes, when we are talking about delivery, or creating a need.
For what you just said, yes, that is, roughly speaking, you are now saying a simple thing: we have a public procurer who only buys, there are suppliers, but they also buy, and if they are dragged into the system as buyers, then where more closed and much more interesting picture. And such a picture is obviously worth weighing through a very simple KPI. You should have, generally speaking, probably the ratio of purchases by state and non-state platforms. Is there such a figure?
Well, there is probably no such figure for today. It probably exists in the heads of the shareholders, so we are moving from the state order market to the B2B market, to the commercial market, and this is understandable, because, once again, the scary and frightening word “state order” should not be taken literally. And for the main players in this market, whom we know perfectly well, here. Just the task is simply to ensure that the state order is carried out so that the state customer will publish his need, and the participant will come and buy something - this is a completed stage. I think everyone understands this, and this is probably the situation two years ago, if not more.
Therefore, everyone looks at it as a large commercial sector, which can be of great interest to the players in this market. Answering your question, we can offer, including a participant in analytics, this is not a secret. There are certain analytical tools that are a BI system that we give to our participants and our customers to analyze this market, and they can, in principle, analyze this market and see which sector is specifically of interest to them. This is, on the one hand, such a traditional instrument. On the other hand, I’ll emphasize that we are nonetheless a high-tech business, so today there is a predictive system that already participates in the group based on the clustering of its interests, we begin to offer him something specific. might be interesting. Maybe he does not even understand this himself, did not think, does not realize.
That is, he bought it somewhere, apparently, but not from you?
Perhaps it does not matter where, on which of the sites. We collect all possible information on its activities and on the basis of this information we begin to build some relevant proposal using the mechanisms of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning.
Here, maybe a little dive. How does this work in terms of the picture of the world? What technologies do you use? What are you analyzing? How does this work in terms of analysis?
Well, as you said, of course, we analyze his participation in all purchases. This data is open, there is a single information system (UIS). This is understandable, this is the main source of data. Further, we, of course, use his behavioral model of some kind: what he did, what interest he was interested in, he downloaded the documentation, did not download the documentation, looked over whether he prepared the application. On the basis of such an enrichment of the data, we begin to refine his proposals. And, of course, we, in order for all machine learning technology to work, we analyze its reaction to our proposal and, accordingly, the model already learns itself and issues more and more relevant offers.
Indeed, in order to determine, you must also analyze the very essence of the tender documentation that it downloads. Indeed, it is one thing if he downloads documentation for the supply of milk, and another thing - for the development of software. These are very different things. That is, generally speaking, you should analyze the texts of the tender documentation and on the basis of these texts make some assumptions on the subject.
Of course, this task is being carried out, we have a wonderful product “star”, which now has, if my memory serves me, about 15 thousand unique visits per day, where, like the parsing, this competitive documentation is produced and based on this parsing, In particular, the analysis is carried out and exactly the proposals that we make to the participant are specified.
Is it also a neural network? What technology is behind this?
Yes, of course, including neural networks, there are certain standardized libraries behind it, and their own developments. I just want to immediately note that we probably always use hybrid technology. This is caused by different moments: somewhere, I repeat again, this is a regulative approach, because we have a Persian there. data and confidential data, which we are forced to completely depersonalize and use in calculations and which we cannot store outside the perimeters of our protected contour, and donate to cloud solutions (in Azure, use Batch for this, Microsoft) somewhere we can we can not. Therefore, in all, in principle, the technological products that we use, we go on a hybrid such a scheme.
That is, when you use Microsoft solutions, you partly depersonalize data?
In some tasks - yes, which require large cluster calculations, for which we use Batch, we, of course, de-personalize the data, reorganize the sentence as we go, analyze the behavior of the student right now.
So this is a real-time process?
Yes.
You are here in real time. And what are the real-time parameters in general, if we discuss the work of the participants on the purchasing portal? Are these seconds or milliseconds?
Now it is some minutes or tens of minutes maximum. We iteratively went, that is, these were the models that were rebuilt there and the proposals were formed once a day, for example. Then we, respectively, reduced the period, using the computing power of Batch. Now we build our solution based on Hadoop. including hybrid schemes (which I talked about), the interval is reduced.
That is, you buy a cloud mainly in order to get peak performance?
Yes.
And if we go back to exactly procurement, what happens there at all? How complex is it technologically platform? What is the volume of transactions in general there, and are there any difficulties of a purely technological nature?
Of course, so that everyone understands that today the electronic trading platform (ETP) is not some kind of monolithic software, it is deposited on one computer, which is somewhere under the table.
Yes, in the corner somewhere.
Although such examples we know, of course, in our market. Today it is a very serious high-load system. We provide performance 24/7, we have such a regulation. It has x2, x4 duplication. In terms of loads, of course, today we hold 12-15 thousand trades per day. If about 10 participants go to each bargaining, then you can imagine what the load is. This is the first situation. The second situation is that for the last few years we have a situation where participants also grow with the market (and the market grows, it gets smarter, it becomes more intelligent too, the participants also, respectively). Therefore, robots are increasingly used in trading sessions.
By the participants?
On the part of the participants, yes, who participate in bidding on certain limits. Of course, this causes an additional load on the ETP. We know, see and monitor by various means - both our own and using previous vendors. We see this load, we track it.
That is, on average, you see which of them is a robot, and who is a person?
Yes, of course, and by the behavioral character, to understand this load in other technological ways.
It turns out a funny situation. You do some behavioral analysis, which, generally speaking, suggests that there is a person. At the same time, a person is replaced on that side with a robot and it seems senseless to analyze his behavior. Or meaningful after all?
See, we just analyze the behavior of a person in terms of work prior to the trading session. That is, we are interested precisely in order for the participant to come to us and not leave, in the good sense of the word.
That is, some phase when the supplier determines whether it is a tender or not, and this is a human activity? And then the robot comes and further negotiates?
Yes of course. And this is not as it is not limited by law now, so these robots are actively used. And this creates an additional burden on the ETP, and we successfully cope with it today, but this is the situation that we have in the past few years.
And on the analysis, when, in fact, the potential supplier chooses for itself interesting tenders, robots do not apply now? Although it would seem that this is also, in general, a place where neural networks are able to answer the question. Well, as a rule, the supplier has some class of tenders that he is interested in. And to get at least the initial filtering would be great, I think.
You know, the decision in the forehead, it is not always, probably, correct for the participants. Because, as a rule, the participant already understands, it seems, what purchase he is making (on the one hand). On the other hand, as I said, if we turn the situation around, when we make an offer for him to participate somewhere, he may not know that there is a completely next, in some adjacent subject area (adjacent - both subject and geographical) his clients
So you do it?
We do, and I say - we turn the situation around, because, as a rule, we also know the whole practice. In large corporations, this is generally understandable - a certain list of approved suppliers. And, often, the purchasers who work, they just look very narrowly at the situation and, in principle, do nothing else. It's clear…
There are some established channels.
Of course, this is an additional burden, additional resources, and why change what is so working? On the other hand, if for a participant it costs nothing, and we give him very good information about looking a little wider, then why not? And we are trying just so to stir up this market.
That is, this is your movement from net tender trading towards a more marketplace format.
Of course, and I repeat once again that here in its pure form, the ETP as a trading system is not something that was yesterday, but the day before yesterday. And all the leading market players probably understand this.
If we are talking about the global marketplace (I really liked this thought), it really has great value. Because from my personal point of view, in fact, the b2b picture in Russia is severely flawed. It clearly has a large number of holes, a large number of companies are not yet entered into it, and it is still so patchwork - somewhere it has lined up, but somewhere, there are probably such dips.
There are a lot of tender sites, and therefore a rather strange situation arises - different companies are bidding at different sites, and, in an amicable way, the supplier must monitor all sites at the same time in order to have the whole picture of the country. And this is such a fragmentation that seems counterproductive and exactly perfect in relation to the supplier. It’s understandable with buyers - it’s convenient to work on one site, especially if she understands its specifics. Is something being done to glue these platforms together, to make them a single access point? How do you like this, plus a minus? How do you even look at it?
This is done, this is understood by our legislators and our regulator, including 44-, which introduced amendments, which will come on July 1, and which are exactly what they say. Some lists of electronic platforms will be formed, certain criteria will be applied to them. Including how the project sounds (like Kommersant wrote about it today) that the Ministry of Finance proposes - if the site has less than 10% of the market, then it is excluded from the list. That is, such a certain centralization of the market (the first) occurs. Secondly, the access of participants to the sites and their accreditation will be carried out in the ENI.
That is one accreditation?
Yes, that is, one accreditation will be at all. I’ll open the curtain to you, I’ll say that the idea to use the blockchain inside the group came exactly from the same place, because we perfectly understood that the participant, even according to Federal Law 44, in order to participate, must monitor, for example, 5 sites; accredited at 5 sites - spend money, time, and so on and so forth.
These are still stop factors that scare a participant away from this large global marketplace. And we, just understanding these stop factors, wanted to solve these problems, so that at least within the group our participant did not have such cordons, and having once come to us (there is a certification center in the group) and having accredited, he did not repeat this procedure and could, logged in, go in, and no longer understand how it goes inside - where the fin. products, where tender products - for him all this should be completely transparent.
And how is it technologically implemented?
We talked about it, it is implemented on the blockchain. We built a blockchain within the group, each node has its own node. It is clear that there are public sections that are available to all participants. And this is a closed consortium, it turns out. Respectively. And then we are segmenting the information obtained at the time of accreditation, using the GOST encryption mechanism (this is our technological know-how - I don’t know yet any analogues on the Russian market).
- - ?
Yes.
?
Yes. , , KYC , . , -, . data-lake, , , data-lake, . – , .
, , , , . , ?
Yes.
? – , , .
, , , , , , . , . , : , - - … .
, , , ?
, .
: …
, , ….
?
Of course yes. . , , .
, - ?
Of course.
, ?
, .
…
Of course. , , , , . Of course. . .
, ?
, , b2b : . , , , , . , , .
, , , , , ?
, , , , . , , , . , – .
: , .. , .
Why not?
, , , , , . , , , , , , : , , , , - , . , , , , , . , , , , , . , , . , , , . ….
«» «». , , , , - , , , .
, , ?
Yes.
, . , , , . , . 0,5% , , , .
, . , – , , .
: , , , , , ?
Yes.
, ?
, .
, , marketplace .
Yes.
, – , – . , , , , , – . ? , , . , «, ».
, …
, .- .
. , .
, , . , . ? , big data . , , , , , ? , « , , …». ?
, – . - , . , , , , , , . , , , « », , , . , , .
, , .
, - . , , , .
, .
, , …
, …
, . , , , ( ), , . /, .
, . IT onsulting . , , , , , . , , , . , . 100% , 99. ?
, , . , , 70% . …
– , .
Yes.
commodity . commodity ?
Of course yes. , b2b . . , …
, , - . . , , . , , . , ( , Microsoft), , - , .
, , , .
, , , , . . – , , , , .
, , .
?
, …
?
, . , , SSO (Single Sign-On), , , , .
, , …
… , .
- -, … , , , , .
Yes.
?
Yes of course. – . , – – , , , , , .
Series of Digital Transformation articles
Technological articles:
')
1. Start .
2. Blockchain in the bank .
3. We learn the car to understand human genes .
4. Machine learning and chocolates .
5. Loading ...
A series of interviews with Dmitry Zavalishin on DZ Online :
1. Alexander Lozhechkin from Microsoft: Do we need developers in the future?
2. Alexey Kostarev from “Robot Vera”: How to replace HR with a robot?
3. Fedor Ovchinnikov from Dodo Pizza: How to replace the restaurant director with a robot?
4. Andrei Golub from ELSE Corp Srl: How to stop spending a lot of time on shopping?
5. Vladimir Sveshnikov from “Robot Vera”: How to replace HR with a robot? Technical part.
6. Future single B2B marketplace or technology game?
Who is the interview with?
Dmitry Zavalishin is a Russian programmer, author of the concept of OS Phantom, organizer and member of the OS Day conference program committee, founder of the DZ Systems group of companies. In 1990–2000 he took an active part in the creation of the Russian segments of the Internet (Relcom) and Fidonet, in particular, ensured the transparent interaction of these networks. In 2000-2004, he was responsible for the design, development and development of the Yandex company portal, created the Yandex.Guru service (hereinafter Yandex.Market). You can read more on the Wiki . Vladimir Grigorenko was born in 1969 in Brody, Lviv region. In 2013, he completed internships at North Easten University (Boston, USA) and at Aoyama Business School (Tokyo, Japan). From the same year, he began working for the RTS-tender company as Deputy General Director. At the moment, Vladimir is working as a director of digital technology at RTS-tender.Interview
Vladimir, the word blockchain is now at the hearing and everyone says different things about him. There are positive connotations, there are negative connotations. It is so, a little bit, flecked bazvord veil, which is used in the case and not in the case. We have already discussed with you that blockchain is actively used in technologies of your company. Can you briefly say what business value a company sells to the market and where is the blockchain in this business value?
Well, first of all, I want to point out that I absolutely agree with your position that today, both in context and not in context, this buzzword is used, as the youth say “on the hype”. But we are practitioners, we solve specific practical business problems. I will make one amendment that we are not talking about the RTS-Tender company as simply about a company that participates, conducts, actually provides procurement for government orders, we are talking about a group of companies. And the tasks that we solve are the tasks of the group.
From here, accordingly, this business need was born to close some technological problem in the group on the exchange of key information, on the counterparties. This, in principle, of course, is due to the regulatory regime that we have in the group of companies, because on the one hand we have a very regulated government order, on the other hand we have absolutely commercial tasks, because we are a commercial company. And this, in principle, necessitated the use of this technology in the group.
That is, your main client is, in fact, government procurement, which, on the one hand, put up a tender on your site, on the other hand, these are suppliers who are fighting for these contracts. Is this the main landscape?
This is the main landscape, yes. This is a global B2B market. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, perhaps it is precisely the state order and the procurement of state-owned companies - this is probably the largest B2B market in Russia today, which, in principle, if well developed, then it can probably turn the economy around so to speak.
Interestingly, with this position, no one has yet come to you in my memory, so this matter has not been voiced. What is really the structure of the state order, the structure that is built around the FZ-44, it is a B2B market. And it is very interesting, in fact. Yes, if you look at the turnover, it is obviously the largest in the country.
On the other hand, if you take the traditional market landscapes, then they present not only the bidding platform itself, where the supplier and the buyer are fighting for the price, but around this there is also some kind of infrastructure, navigation. For me, for example, as a supplier, it would be interesting to see, and who buys the things that I produce. And in the opposite direction, probably, the buyer would be interested in expanding his circle of ideas about sellers. Is there anything on this subject in your picture of the world?
Of course, there is, simply commenting on the thesis that this is the first time you hear such a position, I suggest just to look at any supplier in your terminology, and in our terminology we call him a “participant”. That is, any participant who comes to us or who is thinking of coming is an ordinary commercial supplier who can work not within the framework of a government order, either. Yes, we have 250 thousand suppliers who, with some frequency, do something in this market.
If you look at it simply as a commercial company, which in order to offer something, conducts some of its activities, including it must provide itself with something: to purchase components, services, and so on, and so on. , and so on. Then, perhaps, this position becomes clear. And our goal today is to work with the participants, as we call them, in order to draw them into our landscape, into our ecosystem, so that it will come to us and, in principle, all of our business tasks could would be there to decide, yes, when we are talking about delivery, or creating a need.
For what you just said, yes, that is, roughly speaking, you are now saying a simple thing: we have a public procurer who only buys, there are suppliers, but they also buy, and if they are dragged into the system as buyers, then where more closed and much more interesting picture. And such a picture is obviously worth weighing through a very simple KPI. You should have, generally speaking, probably the ratio of purchases by state and non-state platforms. Is there such a figure?
Well, there is probably no such figure for today. It probably exists in the heads of the shareholders, so we are moving from the state order market to the B2B market, to the commercial market, and this is understandable, because, once again, the scary and frightening word “state order” should not be taken literally. And for the main players in this market, whom we know perfectly well, here. Just the task is simply to ensure that the state order is carried out so that the state customer will publish his need, and the participant will come and buy something - this is a completed stage. I think everyone understands this, and this is probably the situation two years ago, if not more.
Therefore, everyone looks at it as a large commercial sector, which can be of great interest to the players in this market. Answering your question, we can offer, including a participant in analytics, this is not a secret. There are certain analytical tools that are a BI system that we give to our participants and our customers to analyze this market, and they can, in principle, analyze this market and see which sector is specifically of interest to them. This is, on the one hand, such a traditional instrument. On the other hand, I’ll emphasize that we are nonetheless a high-tech business, so today there is a predictive system that already participates in the group based on the clustering of its interests, we begin to offer him something specific. might be interesting. Maybe he does not even understand this himself, did not think, does not realize.
That is, he bought it somewhere, apparently, but not from you?
Perhaps it does not matter where, on which of the sites. We collect all possible information on its activities and on the basis of this information we begin to build some relevant proposal using the mechanisms of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning.
Here, maybe a little dive. How does this work in terms of the picture of the world? What technologies do you use? What are you analyzing? How does this work in terms of analysis?
Well, as you said, of course, we analyze his participation in all purchases. This data is open, there is a single information system (UIS). This is understandable, this is the main source of data. Further, we, of course, use his behavioral model of some kind: what he did, what interest he was interested in, he downloaded the documentation, did not download the documentation, looked over whether he prepared the application. On the basis of such an enrichment of the data, we begin to refine his proposals. And, of course, we, in order for all machine learning technology to work, we analyze its reaction to our proposal and, accordingly, the model already learns itself and issues more and more relevant offers.
Indeed, in order to determine, you must also analyze the very essence of the tender documentation that it downloads. Indeed, it is one thing if he downloads documentation for the supply of milk, and another thing - for the development of software. These are very different things. That is, generally speaking, you should analyze the texts of the tender documentation and on the basis of these texts make some assumptions on the subject.
Of course, this task is being carried out, we have a wonderful product “star”, which now has, if my memory serves me, about 15 thousand unique visits per day, where, like the parsing, this competitive documentation is produced and based on this parsing, In particular, the analysis is carried out and exactly the proposals that we make to the participant are specified.
Is it also a neural network? What technology is behind this?
Yes, of course, including neural networks, there are certain standardized libraries behind it, and their own developments. I just want to immediately note that we probably always use hybrid technology. This is caused by different moments: somewhere, I repeat again, this is a regulative approach, because we have a Persian there. data and confidential data, which we are forced to completely depersonalize and use in calculations and which we cannot store outside the perimeters of our protected contour, and donate to cloud solutions (in Azure, use Batch for this, Microsoft) somewhere we can we can not. Therefore, in all, in principle, the technological products that we use, we go on a hybrid such a scheme.
That is, when you use Microsoft solutions, you partly depersonalize data?
In some tasks - yes, which require large cluster calculations, for which we use Batch, we, of course, de-personalize the data, reorganize the sentence as we go, analyze the behavior of the student right now.
So this is a real-time process?
Yes.
You are here in real time. And what are the real-time parameters in general, if we discuss the work of the participants on the purchasing portal? Are these seconds or milliseconds?
Now it is some minutes or tens of minutes maximum. We iteratively went, that is, these were the models that were rebuilt there and the proposals were formed once a day, for example. Then we, respectively, reduced the period, using the computing power of Batch. Now we build our solution based on Hadoop. including hybrid schemes (which I talked about), the interval is reduced.
That is, you buy a cloud mainly in order to get peak performance?
Yes.
And if we go back to exactly procurement, what happens there at all? How complex is it technologically platform? What is the volume of transactions in general there, and are there any difficulties of a purely technological nature?
Of course, so that everyone understands that today the electronic trading platform (ETP) is not some kind of monolithic software, it is deposited on one computer, which is somewhere under the table.
Yes, in the corner somewhere.
Although such examples we know, of course, in our market. Today it is a very serious high-load system. We provide performance 24/7, we have such a regulation. It has x2, x4 duplication. In terms of loads, of course, today we hold 12-15 thousand trades per day. If about 10 participants go to each bargaining, then you can imagine what the load is. This is the first situation. The second situation is that for the last few years we have a situation where participants also grow with the market (and the market grows, it gets smarter, it becomes more intelligent too, the participants also, respectively). Therefore, robots are increasingly used in trading sessions.
By the participants?
On the part of the participants, yes, who participate in bidding on certain limits. Of course, this causes an additional load on the ETP. We know, see and monitor by various means - both our own and using previous vendors. We see this load, we track it.
That is, on average, you see which of them is a robot, and who is a person?
Yes, of course, and by the behavioral character, to understand this load in other technological ways.
It turns out a funny situation. You do some behavioral analysis, which, generally speaking, suggests that there is a person. At the same time, a person is replaced on that side with a robot and it seems senseless to analyze his behavior. Or meaningful after all?
See, we just analyze the behavior of a person in terms of work prior to the trading session. That is, we are interested precisely in order for the participant to come to us and not leave, in the good sense of the word.
That is, some phase when the supplier determines whether it is a tender or not, and this is a human activity? And then the robot comes and further negotiates?
Yes of course. And this is not as it is not limited by law now, so these robots are actively used. And this creates an additional burden on the ETP, and we successfully cope with it today, but this is the situation that we have in the past few years.
And on the analysis, when, in fact, the potential supplier chooses for itself interesting tenders, robots do not apply now? Although it would seem that this is also, in general, a place where neural networks are able to answer the question. Well, as a rule, the supplier has some class of tenders that he is interested in. And to get at least the initial filtering would be great, I think.
You know, the decision in the forehead, it is not always, probably, correct for the participants. Because, as a rule, the participant already understands, it seems, what purchase he is making (on the one hand). On the other hand, as I said, if we turn the situation around, when we make an offer for him to participate somewhere, he may not know that there is a completely next, in some adjacent subject area (adjacent - both subject and geographical) his clients
So you do it?
We do, and I say - we turn the situation around, because, as a rule, we also know the whole practice. In large corporations, this is generally understandable - a certain list of approved suppliers. And, often, the purchasers who work, they just look very narrowly at the situation and, in principle, do nothing else. It's clear…
There are some established channels.
Of course, this is an additional burden, additional resources, and why change what is so working? On the other hand, if for a participant it costs nothing, and we give him very good information about looking a little wider, then why not? And we are trying just so to stir up this market.
That is, this is your movement from net tender trading towards a more marketplace format.
Of course, and I repeat once again that here in its pure form, the ETP as a trading system is not something that was yesterday, but the day before yesterday. And all the leading market players probably understand this.
If we are talking about the global marketplace (I really liked this thought), it really has great value. Because from my personal point of view, in fact, the b2b picture in Russia is severely flawed. It clearly has a large number of holes, a large number of companies are not yet entered into it, and it is still so patchwork - somewhere it has lined up, but somewhere, there are probably such dips.
There are a lot of tender sites, and therefore a rather strange situation arises - different companies are bidding at different sites, and, in an amicable way, the supplier must monitor all sites at the same time in order to have the whole picture of the country. And this is such a fragmentation that seems counterproductive and exactly perfect in relation to the supplier. It’s understandable with buyers - it’s convenient to work on one site, especially if she understands its specifics. Is something being done to glue these platforms together, to make them a single access point? How do you like this, plus a minus? How do you even look at it?
This is done, this is understood by our legislators and our regulator, including 44-, which introduced amendments, which will come on July 1, and which are exactly what they say. Some lists of electronic platforms will be formed, certain criteria will be applied to them. Including how the project sounds (like Kommersant wrote about it today) that the Ministry of Finance proposes - if the site has less than 10% of the market, then it is excluded from the list. That is, such a certain centralization of the market (the first) occurs. Secondly, the access of participants to the sites and their accreditation will be carried out in the ENI.
That is one accreditation?
Yes, that is, one accreditation will be at all. I’ll open the curtain to you, I’ll say that the idea to use the blockchain inside the group came exactly from the same place, because we perfectly understood that the participant, even according to Federal Law 44, in order to participate, must monitor, for example, 5 sites; accredited at 5 sites - spend money, time, and so on and so forth.
These are still stop factors that scare a participant away from this large global marketplace. And we, just understanding these stop factors, wanted to solve these problems, so that at least within the group our participant did not have such cordons, and having once come to us (there is a certification center in the group) and having accredited, he did not repeat this procedure and could, logged in, go in, and no longer understand how it goes inside - where the fin. products, where tender products - for him all this should be completely transparent.
And how is it technologically implemented?
We talked about it, it is implemented on the blockchain. We built a blockchain within the group, each node has its own node. It is clear that there are public sections that are available to all participants. And this is a closed consortium, it turns out. Respectively. And then we are segmenting the information obtained at the time of accreditation, using the GOST encryption mechanism (this is our technological know-how - I don’t know yet any analogues on the Russian market).
- - ?
Yes.
?
Yes. , , KYC , . , -, . data-lake, , , data-lake, . – , .
, , , , . , ?
Yes.
? – , , .
, , , , , , . , . , : , - - … .
, , , ?
, .
: …
, , ….
?
Of course yes. . , , .
, - ?
Of course.
, ?
, .
…
Of course. , , , , . Of course. . .
, ?
, , b2b : . , , , , . , , .
, , , , , ?
, , , , . , , , . , – .
: , .. , .
Why not?
, , , , , . , , , , , , : , , , , - , . , , , , , . , , , , , . , , . , , , . ….
«» «». , , , , - , , , .
, , ?
Yes.
, . , , , . , . 0,5% , , , .
, . , – , , .
: , , , , , ?
Yes.
, ?
, .
, , marketplace .
Yes.
, – , – . , , , , , – . ? , , . , «, ».
, …
, .- .
. , .
, , . , . ? , big data . , , , , , ? , « , , …». ?
, – . - , . , , , , , , . , , , « », , , . , , .
, , .
, - . , , , .
, .
, , …
, …
, . , , , ( ), , . /, .
, . IT onsulting . , , , , , . , , , . , . 100% , 99. ?
, , . , , 70% . …
– , .
Yes.
commodity . commodity ?
Of course yes. , b2b . . , …
, , - . . , , . , , . , ( , Microsoft), , - , .
, , , .
, , , , . . – , , , , .
, , .
?
, …
?
, . , , SSO (Single Sign-On), , , , .
, , …
… , .
- -, … , , , , .
Yes.
?
Yes of course. – . , – – , , , , , .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/354002/
All Articles