Supply chain leaders face a 63% problem rate where EDI trading partner onboarding automation takes too long due to customized requirements, with 47% of IT managers saying slow EDI supplier onboarding is keeping their businesses from capturing new revenue opportunities. Yet while most companies accept 8-10 week EDI onboarding times,
Most EDI implementations successfully reach go-live status. The real problems start months later when systems quietly degrade, costs multiply, and trading partners begin complaining about failed transactions. Companies fail to regularly assess system performance after implementation, leading to undetected performance degradation, security vulnerabilities, and compliance issues that ripple across departments.
Web EDI portals seemed like a practical compromise when retailers mandated electronic data interchange in the 2010s. Supply chain teams could log into browser-based portals, manually process purchase orders, and satisfy compliance requirements without expensive software implementations. But those manual workarounds are now creating unexpected bottlenecks as volumes increase and
Transportation management systems across the supply chain are hitting a performance wall in 2026. The problem isn't your TMS software itself – what used to be a back-office EDI system running batch EDI transactions is now expected to support real-time, omnichannel commerce. Modern shippers demand instant visibility, but attempting
Multiple TMS platforms are forcing companies into costly vendor lock-in scenarios through tightly tied EDI systems that create dangerous dependencies when businesses need to change or upgrade their transportation management systems. The Hidden Multi-Vendor TMS Integration Crisis Breaking EDI Networks TMS vendors are creating a perfect storm of interoperability failures
Manufacturing and distribution companies discover a harsh reality when upgrading their digital operations: ecommerce and EDI are no longer separate systems inside manufacturing and distribution companies. Together, they form the digital backbone that determines how efficiently orders move, how accurately information flows and how effectively companies compete in an increasingly
Many suppliers still manage multiple order formats daily, processing EDI orders through automated systems while handling PDF documents, Excel files, and email attachments manually from non-EDI trading partners. This fragmented approach creates data silos, inflates processing costs by up to 40%, and introduces delays that cascade throughout the supply chain.
MercuryGate has struggled with what becomes clear when you dig into implementation experiences. Many vendors don't support EDI functionality out of the box and have duct tape and rubber banded solutions together to make EDI work. That's exactly the kind of fragile foundation that collapses during
Supply chain leaders in 2026 are learning a hard lesson. Data movement does not equal execution. The integration platforms that companies spent millions implementing over the past decade can connect systems and exchange documents efficiently, but they struggle when supply chains shift from business-as-usual into disruption mode. A single missed
Your trading partners don't exist in a single-format world. Most supply chains use a mix of automated EDI, APIs, and managed file transfer (MFT) to work with different partners, systems, and compliance requirements. Some suppliers send purchase orders via email PDFs, while others post orders to your portal.
Most companies implementing agentic AI EDI integration face a stark reality: Gartner predicts over 40% of agentic AI projects will fail by 2027, and transportation management system integration represents one of the highest-risk deployment scenarios. Yet this failure rate isn't inevitable. The enterprises succeeding with autonomous EDI-TMS operations
Most hybrid EDI-API integration projects fail to deliver on their promised ROI because finance teams underestimate the hidden complexities. You've probably seen the pattern: executives approve $200K budgets based on vendor presentations, only to discover the real costs hit $500K when maintenance, training, and partner onboarding drag on