TL:DR
It's about execution.
Last week I argued that the aviation aftermarket doesn't have an RFQ generation problem. It has an answer generation problem.
The response was overwhelmingly focused on one idea: the market still struggles to connect demand with qualified answers quickly enough to matter.
I agree.
But I also believe that conversation stops one step too early. Because even a response layer is not the final destination.
The industry has spent years improving how requests move through the market. More recently, attention has shifted toward improving how responses move through the market. Both are necessary developments. Both create value. Both reduce friction. Yet neither fundamentally addresses the question every aviation company is actually trying to answer: how do we resolve demand as quickly, accurately, and profitably as possible?
That distinction matters because customers don't purchase RFQs. They don't purchase sourcing events. They don't purchase supplier responses. They purchase outcomes. Everything else is simply a mechanism used to arrive at those outcomes.
The industry has become exceptionally good at discussing the movement of information. The next decade will belong to the companies that become exceptionally good at discussing the movement of decisions.
Why Responses Alone Don't Resolve Demand
The idea of a response layer is directionally correct. If buyer-side systems become more intelligent, seller-side systems should become more intelligent as well. If procurement teams can automate sourcing requests, suppliers should be able to automate portions of the quoting process. Structured demand should eventually meet structured supply.
The problem is that responses alone don't resolve demand.
Imagine a customer submits a large RFQ for twenty line items. No inventory for several of them. The sourcing team distributes requests into the market. Ten suppliers respond. At first glance this appears successful. Information has been gathered. Quotes have been received. The system worked.
But the real work's only begun.
Which supplier should be selected? Which lead time is realistic? Which certification package satisfies customer requirements? Which traceability chain introduces risk? Which supplier has historically delivered as promised? Which supplier has the highest probability of converting the opportunity into revenue? Which quote is technically correct but commercially dangerous? Which response creates the best customer outcome?
None of those questions are solved merely because a response arrived.
In fact, this is where most companies continue to spend the majority of their time. The industry often talks about sourcing as though sourcing is the objective. It's not. Sourcing is one input into a much larger decision making process. The goal isn't to collect responses. The goal is to determine which response should become the answer.
That is why response automation alone can't become the industry's end state. It improves information flow, but information flow and demand resolution are not the same thing.
The Difference Between Response and Resolution
The distinction between response and resolution may ultimately define the next generation of aviation software.
- Response automation focuses on generating answers. Resolution automation focuses on determining which answer should be trusted.
- Response automation measures activity. Resolution automation measures outcomes.
- Response automation asks whether a supplier replied. Resolution automation asks whether the organization now possesses enough confidence to act.
This difference becomes particularly important in aviation because decisions rarely exist in isolation. Price matters, but price is never the entire answer. Lead time matters. Documentation matters. Traceability matters. Historical supplier performance matters. Customer specific requirements matter. Strategic relationships matter. Compliance obligations matter. Business risk matters.
Companies aren't simply evaluating data points. They are evaluating confidence.
The future state of aviation software therefore cannot be limited to collecting information more efficiently. It must help us transform information into decisions. The challenge is no longer obtaining data. The challenge is determining what to do with the data once it arrives.
That is where the concept of an execution layer begins to emerge.
The Rise of the Execution Layer
A response layer helps answer questions.
An execution layer helps complete workflows.
Those concepts sound similar until you follow an opportunity from beginning to end.
A customer submits an RFQ. Inventory is checked. Availability does not exist. Most systems identify the exception and stop. A task is created. A notification is sent. A sourcing event begins. Human intervention takes over.
An execution layer approaches the same situation differently.
Rather than identifying a problem, it begins resolving the problem. Approved suppliers are identified automatically. Historical sourcing performance is considered automatically. Requests are distributed automatically. Responses are ingested automatically. Pricing, certifications, traceability, documentation, photos, and supporting information are normalized automatically. Supplier reliability is evaluated automatically. Business rules are applied automatically. Recommendations are generated automatically.
The workflow doesn't stop when inventory is unavailable. It continues moving toward a decision.
That's the fundamental difference.
The execution layer exists to bridge the gap between activity and outcome. It doesn't merely tell users what happened. It helps determine what should happen next.
What Happens When No Inventory Exists
This is where the conversation becomes practical rather than theoretical.
Most software demonstrations focus on inventory that already exists. The customer requests a part. The system finds the part. A quote is generated. The workflow appears efficient.
Reality is rarely that clean.
The most valuable opportunities often emerge when inventory is unavailable. That's precisely where traditional systems begin creating work. Sales teams begin sourcing. Purchasing teams begin contacting suppliers. Documentation begins moving between inboxes. Multiple departments become involved. Information becomes fragmented. Decision-making slows.
The challenge is no longer finding inventory. It's become orchestrating resolution.
A modern execution workflow should be capable of identifying approved sourcing vendors, distributing requests, ingesting responses, extracting relevant information, validating supporting documentation, comparing supplier performance, evaluating commercial considerations, and constructing a decision-ready recommendation. The organization should not be forced to rebuild the answer manually every time an exception occurs.
This is particularly important because exceptions are not edge cases in aviation. They're daily operating reality.
The companies that create the most value won't be those that automate ideal workflows. They'll be those that automate exception handling.
That's where operational leverage lives.
Why Decision Intelligence Matters More Than AI Agents
The market's current fascination with AI agents risks creating the same mistake that dashboards created years ago. Companies and operators begin measuring the mechanism rather than the outcome.
The number of agents deployed does - not - matter.
The number of decisions improved does.
Every company can build another workflow. Every company can launch another agent. Every company can automate another notification. Those capabilities will increasingly become commodities.
Decision quality however will not.
If ten suppliers respond to the same opportunity, which supplier should be selected? If five suppliers appear equally qualified, which one creates the lowest operational risk? If two suppliers offer similar pricing, which one provides the highest probability of successful execution?
These questions can't be answered through automation alone.
They require something more.
Not "more" in the marketing sense of the word. More in the operational sense of the word. The ability to evaluate context, history, outcomes, performance, risk, and organizational priorities at the same time.
That's why that mechanism may ultimately become more valuable than workflow intelligence. One helps organizations process information. The other helps organizations act on information.
The difference is significant and it's measurable.
How ERP.Aero Approached the Problem
This philosophy is one of the primary reasons ERP.Aero, #iRFQ, and #ELIA were designed around resolution rather than activity.
The objective was never simply to automate RFQ creation. Nor was it merely to automate supplier responses. The objective was to reduce the amount of manual effort required to arrive at a trustworthy answer.
An incoming customer email can become an RFQ automatically. Vendor responses, with attachments, can be parsed automatically. Pricing, certifications, traceability records, attachments, and supporting documentation can be organized automatically. Approved suppliers can be prioritized automatically. Historical performance can be evaluated automatically. Recommendations can be generated automatically. Quotes can be constructed automatically.
More importantly, these workflows don't need to stop at predefined boundaries.
Companies can incorporate sourcing logic, approval structures, supplier qualification requirements, customer-specific business rules, marketplace integrations, repair workflows, exchange programs, inventory alternatives, and custom decision criteria into the process itself. The objective is not merely to automate a task. The objective is to automate progression toward resolution.
That distinction influences every architectural decision.
The Most Important Capability Is Adaptability
The aviation aftermarket is not a uniform market.
Distributors operate differently than repair stations. Repair stations operate differently than OEMs. Brokers operate differently than airlines. Different companies and operators prioritize different outcomes, and evaluate risk differently. Different organizations define success differently.
That reality creates a challenge for software vendors.
Rigid workflows inevitably become constraints because they assume every organization should solve problems the same way.
The future is more likely to belong to configurable execution architectures capable of adapting to different operating models. Some organizations may prioritize sourcing speed. Others may prioritize documentation quality. Others may prioritize supplier performance, customer experience, repair alternatives, inventory utilization, or commercial profitability.
The winning systems will not force businesses into predefined workflows.
They will provide a framework through which businesses can define their own, or borrow from others.
What the Future Actually Looks Like
The aviation aftermarket has spent decades improving how requests move through the market, and today it's improving how responses move through the market. The next phase?
The next phase will focus on how decisions move through the market.
Demand enters the system. Supply is identified. Information is collected. Context is applied. Recommendations are generated. Exceptions are managed. Decisions are accelerated. Outcomes are produced.
The companies that create the most value will not be the companies that automate the greatest number of activities. They'll be the companies that reduce the greatest amount of uncertainty.
Because uncertainty is what ultimately slows decision-making.
Not a lack of information.
A lack of confidence.
The Practical Takeaway
The industry doesn't need to choose between procurement automation, response automation, decision intelligence, or execution architectures. Each represents a necessary stage in the evolution of aviation operations.
The mistake is assuming the journey ends at responses. It doesn't.
Procurement is not solved when a request leaves the building.
Procurement is not solved when a response arrives.
Procurement is solved when demand is resolved.
The aviation industry has spent years automating how RFQs are created. The current generation is focused on how RFQs are answered. The next generation will focus on how demand is resolved.
The companies that lead that transition will not simply automate more activity.
They'll automate more resolution.
About the Author
Ralph Merhi is the CEO of ERP.Aero and host of the Skybound Ops podcast. He works with aviation distributors, brokers, OEMs, manufacturers, and MRO organizations to modernize operations, reduce manual effort, and improve execution through automation, artificial intelligence, and scalable business systems.
Interested in the concepts discussed in this article? Feel free to reach out for a copy of the presentation or to continue the conversation.
About ERP.Aero​
​ERP.Aero is an aviation-specific ERP and execution platform built for distributors, suppliers, brokers, manufacturers, and repair organizations. Combining inventory, procurement, quality, compliance, reporting, workflow automation, marketplace connectivity, and AI-driven capabilities such as iRFQ, ELIA, and ERP.Aero /Build, the platform helps aviation companies move from disconnected processes toward intelligent execution and faster business outcomes.
See you next week!
​