Scenario Planning - Face it You are WRONG!

 I want to discuss some thoughts I have on scenario planning and why I think this skill is the future of supply chain management and planning. But first, let’s cover one thing and that is something you have to come to grips with: YOU ARE WRONG. 

As great supply chain managers, we all like to show how great we are with math and how great we are with developing algorithms to come up with “the number”. “The number” could be an ESOP number showing inventory requirements after detailed and exhaustive analysis of demand requirements or it could be something like what transportation or labor capacity I need to satisfy expected demand in the up coming months. Coming up with these numbers requires a lot of thought, a lot of data collection and the inevitable crunching of numbers. We then like to show everyone that these numbers are “the answer”.  As you can tell from what I titled this entry, I do not believe they are the answer. 

Rather, the supply chain manager should think of the number as the first step in a multi-step process to develop and document different scenarios which could occur. Think of this first number, not as the answer, but rather as the “base case”. It is a hypothesis. If all your assumptions come true then this number will likely be “the number”. Of course, in life, and in supply chain, all the assumptions almost never come true or develop as you planned them. I submit that almost every major event in the last 20 years in supply chain (2008 recession, 2020 COVID, etc.) were not in anyone’s base case assumption. 

Now that you are thinking of this number as just one possible outcome, what do you do next? Well, you build scenarios and you calculate what “the number” will be under all the different scenarios. You assign probabilities to those scenarios and, in some cases, you build out contingency plans to deal with specific scenarios, in advance, in case those scenarios come to fruition. 

There are many documented ways to think about this and for those who are academically inclined, I point you to a great research paper titled, “Next Generation Supply Chains” where they discuss the Gausmeier-approach to scenario planning and the Applied Approach to scenario planning. It is a great read to get the more academic base on scenario planning especially in supply chains. However I would suggest, after reading this article, you discover what will work in your company. How can you simplify it and bring it to the practical level.

I believe if you do this work, in advance, you will be much quicker in executing well thought out plans for each scenario that could develop. You will have thought about it in advance when you were not under undue pressure, you will have documented the assumptions and potential scenarios, you will have assigned responsibilities and tasks. All when you could think much more clearly. 

After all this is done, just like a great NFL quarterback, you can call the play and audible out of it with confidence and conviction that you have planned for the change of events and you have practiced it. 

Yes, getting “the number” is important. But, what is more important is that you admit that the number is wrong, and you plan for it. 

The Value of S&OP in Logistics

I have been talking a lot at various events recently on the value of Sales and Operations Planning to the logistician and specifically to those managing transportation.  I have found many so called "great" S&OP processes stop at the end of the factory and just assume unlimited capacity and capability from the distribution arm of the supply chain.  Very few look holistically at the entire chain from raw materials to the consumer and most just look at their particular part of it with some input from upstream and downstream suppliers.

This should and must change. The S&OP process is critical to the proper execution of the logistics' plans of a company.  It is also vital to give your carriers a decent forecast on the capacity needed at a time in the future.  I will remark more on this later in a post soon however I do want to remark on Kevin O'Marah's comments relative to the core aspect of S&OP - Trust.

Even the core of Vested Outsourcing  is built on trust.  In S&OP Gotcha: Bad Collaboration, Kevin discusses how egos and the desire to "win" ultimately can kill a good S&OP process.  Before entering into a true S&OP collaborative process across the virtual enterprise (this includes all participants in the supply chain) you have to agree on core principles and on trust.  If one is trying to get "leverage" over another then I truly believe it is a waste of time to enter into a S&OP process.  Just understand the situation you are in and make the best of it.  The core ideas to S&OP are:

1. Each trusts each other's data.  If you feel data is manipulated or hidden, you are starting at a weak point right from the beginning. 
2. Each agrees the "solution" is what is right for the ultimate end user - the consumer. 
3. Each agrees the "solution" has to be profitable for all.  No one will stay entered in a relationship if it is not profitable.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Where it goes wrong is where one side withholds information or changes information to gain profits at the expense of the other. 
4. Each agrees to open book sharing.  If key data is withheld then it just will not be possible, long term, to maintain a solid S&OP process. 

For the logistician, the output of this has to then tie to capacity requirements, possibilities and constraints of the logistics network.  One cannot assume whatever the outcome of the core S&OP process can be executed without constraint.  That is a recipe for failure. 

Logisticians need to force their way into the S&OP process of a company and make their voice known.  

Inventory to Sales Ratio Tells a Grim Story

As my readers know I follow this very closely as this ratio tells us whether product is "backing up" in the supply chain or flowing as it should from manufacturer to consumer.  We are already hearing anecdotes of sales not being where they should be for the holidays, slow movements of imports, extended automotive shutdowns and now this... the inventories in the pipeline relative to sales are growing:

Inventory to Sales - Published 12/11/2012

The slope of the line looks very ominous and it certainly looks like it did back in the 2006 time frame.  Of course, we came out of that but only for a short period before we had a collapse.  This clearly leads us to believe freight will be very soft for Q1 and perhaps into Q2 as companies execute the "final mile" by selling what is inventory but not restocking until these inventories get back to normal. 

Some may look back into the '90's and say "we have a long way to go before we get to those levels". To this I say retailers and manufacturers learned their lesson during the "great recession" and I would not anticipate ever going back to those levels of inventory (At least until those who lived through the great recession die off then the new younger hip crowd says "this time is different" and go back to it - it is a generational cycle).

This data, along with the idea that we will have extended automotive shutdowns (at least with GM on the Cruze line) leads me to believe my prediction for soft freight in the first half of the year is very reasonable.  

As always, I hope I am wrong however I truly just let the data speak.  

3D Printing - Don't Reduce Costs - Eliminate Them!

You have heard me say over and over again that the ultimate goal is not just cost reduction it is the actual elimination of costs.  Think e-books and iTunes® and think of all the costs which just were  totally eliminated.  No one figured out how to "reduce" the costs of shipping books rather they just eliminated the shipment all together.

An early trend I am watching now is the idea of 3D printing.  This may even be too early to call it a "Mega-trend" however I think it is something we should be aware of.  Just like the elimination of shipments of things which have been digitized (books and music) the next frontier are physical "hard" parts.

At the end of this post is a neat little video which explains this technology.  Think of it this way:  If you need to make something which is made out of one material you could just load the material, load the digital specs and the printer does the rest. The key for Logistics people is the part is printed at the point of use and on demand.  This has two implications.

First, as this gets better and better and costs come down for the machines more and more product will be made this way.  This means less product is made at some far away factory and shipped.  This will result in a continued headwind on shipping volumes.

Second, this will also dramatically reduce or even eliminate inventory.  No need to stock 30 days supply of something when you can "print on demand".  This also puts downward pressure on freight demands as less and less distribution will be needed (also has huge implications for warehousing).

3D Printers from Tasman Machinery

To the left you can see what these machines look like.  I just found these off the Tasman Machinery website (no endorsement just a good picture).  Like all electronic machines during their infant stage there is a lot more development to happen and I am sure it will happen.

Here is a picture of actual wearable shoes made with 3D printers and above is a picture of a model / replica of a ship made with 3D printers.

You may look at these products and say there is nothing to worry about as it will take a long time for these types of products to be brought into production.  Of course, I would have to remind you this is what people say about all disruptive and new technologies at the beginning.

 I think this will develop rapidly and this could be the "new normal" for a lot of manufacturing of sub assemblies and parts.  As I said above, this will eliminate the need to ship this product and, of course, lessen the demand for transportation.  One can clearly imagine a day when you walk into a store, need a basic product and rather than the hassle of inventory and distribution, the store clerk will just "print on demand" for you in the store.  Huge implications for freight costs and demand, inventory and warehousing and S&OP processes. 

According to a blog post by Richard Gottlieb at Global Toy News we may be at a tipping point as it relates to the use of 3D printing in the toy industry.  He rightfully highlights the implications and benefits of this technology by saying:

• If you own enough 3D printers, why would you need to own any inventory?  You could print out on demand.  It’s JIT (Just in Time) in its truest sense.
• If you can print out small batches without the need for molds or factories?  Anyone can enter the marketplace with a new item.  The only cost is for the material.  
• If the need for factories and engineers declines, what happens to people who currently hold those jobs?

Again, this is pre "mega trend" stage but watch it closely as these types of technologies have a way of taking off.

Below is a great little video explaining what this is all about:

Packaging and Merchandising Vs. Logistics Efficiency?

Conducting what I call a "walk around" (my wife calls it shopping) in the grocery store this weekend started my mind wandering to ideas about packaging and shelf space.  Why would a logistician be thinking of these stereotypical marketing and merchandising topics you may ask?  The answer is simple:  There is a battle going on in the retail world within companies and it is the battle of the logistician versus the merchandiser.

Just look at the picture below:

A merchandiser probably sees nice colors to attract the shopper's eyes, good shelf space display, multiple rows of the product to dominate the shopper etc.  A logistician sees boxes which are too big for the product which is in them thereby reducing useful cube in a trailer. If you look to the far end of the aisle you will see round and curvy shaped bottles.  The logistician thinks these attract the eye but kill you on cube (both primary and secondary) utilization.  So, the question is who wins?  To this point in my career the merchandiser has won but that is changing with three key changes in the external environment.

First, transportation costs have become so high people are no longer just deferring to the merchandiser.  They really need to make a solid business case why that curvy bottle which kills cube utilization is going to drive sales.  Otherwise, we will move to optimizing cube.

Second, shelf space is no longer such a driver of consumer preference.  When the entire concept of shelf space importance was developed it was the way to advertise to an uneducated consumer.  The consumer "learned" about your product by having the product catch her eye then have her read the box (another more practical reason why boxes are so big - need real estate for the writing and graphics) and this would be a major driver of her buying decision (The old adage there are two moments of truth: One when she decides to buy the product and two when she uses the product for the first time).  However this has all changed.  Many come to the store already knowing what they will buy as they have researched it prior to arriving. Or, if they have not, rather than read the box they will whip out their smartphone and read about it on line (the smart merchandiser will have a QR code on the box so it can be scanned).  This is a mega trend for how people shop which is growing and not shrinking.  The advent of the smart phone means you no longer have a self contained space to barrage the consumer with colors and splash - the consumer can "virtually" leave your space, find the information they want and need, then reenter your space without you even knowing it.

Third, as stores become smaller (especially if you follow the mega trend of consumers moving back to the cities which changes the entire dynamic of retailing) shelf space is shrinking.  With shelf space shrinking you need to figure out how to get your product in front of the consumer, get it to be interesting AND make it small and compact (The tyranny of the "OR" - Good to Great, Jim Collins).  For example, if you make laundry detergent and you only get 1' across on a shelf.  You can take that up with two giant bottles of non-concentrated detergent or you can concentrate it immensely and get 6-8 bottles across.  I personally believe more is better and the the signal the consumer will get is if there is that many on the shelf it must be because people are buying it - perhaps I should try it.   This trend supports and is in harmony with the needs of the logistician.

So, what does this mean for the logistician?  It means you need to get upstream in the packaging design, merchandising and manufacturing of your product.  Get involved in these decisions on the front end and influence the decisions which will meet the needs of the marketer and merchandiser and will also play nicely with cube utilization and transportation costs.  The lowest cost transportation is the transportation you do not use and better cube and better secondary cube (a topic I will address in another post) drives the elimination (not just reduction) of transportation cost.  This means you need to be intimately involved in the Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) process and if your company does not have one you should lead and develop one.

I have always said the great logistician spends as much time on these topics as they do on working with carriers.  The work with carriers tends to be fun part however this is where the majority of your cost savings will come.