Please endorse my enhancement request and let me know if you already have a way to accomplish this:
ER126050
On the contract side of Infor FSM, Contract Groups and Contract Types provide a powerful way to control behavior, messaging, and experience—without forcing accounting structures to do that work.
On the supplier side, that same flexibility doesn’t exist today.
Many organizations want to support different supplier experiences, such as:
- Strategic suppliers vs one‑time suppliers
- Portal‑required vs email‑only suppliers
- Compliance‑heavy suppliers vs simple vendors
Currently, the only way to achieve this is by creating additional Vendor Groups or Supplier Submitted Invoice Companies, even when there’s no real accounting difference. This leads to:
- Over‑configuration
- Increased maintenance and reporting complexity
- Accounting design being driven by UX and communication needs
🚀 Proposed Enhancement
Introduce a Supplier Group (parent) and Supplier Type (child) framework, similar to the contract model.
- Supplier Groups for high‑level classification, governance, and reporting
- Supplier Types to control:
- Supplier portal access and features
- Email and onboarding messaging
- Onboarding requirements and validations
- Workflow and approval behavior
- Processing rules
This would allow supplier experience to be configured independently of accounting structures.
✅ Why This Matters
- Cleaner accounting design
- Easier scalability as supplier populations grow
- Better supplier onboarding and portal adoption
- Stronger parity between customer and supplier capabilities in FSM
💬 Looking for Community Feedback
- Have you encountered similar challenges?
- How are you managing different supplier experiences today?
- Would a Supplier Type framework solve problems in your environment?
If this would be valuable for your organization, please comment or upvote so Infor can gauge broader interest.
Looking forward to hearing others’ thoughts and use cases! 👇
