Inbound Logistics Discusses Cost

As if on queue, after I wrote my article about recasting your discussion from "cost" control to "revenue" generation, Inbound Logistics published an article titled:  "Keeping an Eye on Cost Management".  The article discussed the 80/20 rule where 80% of a network's cost is baked in to the network design and 20% is about execution.  I agree.

But, again, I must say the article totally misses the point of Customer Centric Supply Chains. You do not design your network to cut costs!  You design your network to provide incredible service to your customers.  Once that is done, you figure out how to do it at the most optimal cost.

Most of the work in network design is working cross functionally with sales and strategy to identify not only what customer needs are today but where will they be in 10 years.  Where is the ball going.. not where is it today.

This is why Amazon is so brilliant in their supply chain strategy - they focus solely on the customer needs, they design to those needs and then they drive out cost.  Further, they are not looking at the needs today but rather the needs 5 and 10 years from now.  How do I know this?  Easy:  Everything Amazon does is first met with disdain, "no one can make money doing that" type statements etc.  When I hear that, I know they are on to something.

Continuing on Cube Utilization - Secondary Cube

What if Watermelons were Square?

Ask yourself - What if Watermelons Were Square?

I find just about everyone gets the idea that putting more stuff in a trailer will generally reduce your overall costs because you will use less trailers.  It is that simple.  Miles per unit sold goes down and with that the cost of transportation.  Further, your sustainability goals are met far quicker because less miles means less emissions.  The easiest way to reduce the cost of anything is just to stop using it.  Concentrating on cube utilization accomplishes this.

However, for all the people who know this I find a lot less worry about secondary cube or what some call "liquid cube".  This actually takes into account the utilization of the cartons or packaging of product you are loading in the truck.  Think of it this way:  You may load 1,000 cases of xyz product into your trailer, look at it, and say "wow, did I cube out that trailer"!  What you may miss though is the cube utilization of the cases is horrible.  Open the cases and you may find a lot of air due to bottles being curved, sizing relative to the case not done properly, or just packaging which is too big for its contents.  If you are able to solve that problem (per my previous post, most likely with the marketing and merchandising folks) you may find you can put a lot more product in that same trailer.

So, the journey continues... Once you think you have cubed the trailer, start looking at secondary cube and start solving that problem.  Keep packing them tight and ELIMINATE emissions and cost; don't just reduce it.

(Answer to above question:  A lot more would fit in a trailer - after all, the rind is merely nature's packaging!)

Cost Cutting or Restructuring?

I heard the silliest argument on CNBC today asking whether a company is engaged in "cost cutting" or "restructuring".  What the heck is the difference you ask?  A person went on to explain a convoluted explanation when, in fact, they are one and the same thing:  Cost Management.

Cost management is to continually look for the most efficient manner in getting products or services to market.  It is that simple.. You get more units of output for every unit of input.  Whether that input be capital or labor it does not matter in the financial equation.

Further, every company should always be doing this.  It is, in fact, why you are in business and why you "add value" and how you gain competitive advantage.

So, let's stop the silly arguments of what we call it, realize it for what it is and move on.  I could have saved CNBC 5 minutes of their silly showtime.