What Supply Chain Needs is Long Term Thinking

We all know there is a conflict - a push / pull relationship if you will - between delivering current results and looking out to the long term.  The story goes that the short term are the "table stakes" meaning you have to deliver those in order to earn the right to think long term.  This makes sense.  After all, you would not want your company to go out of business in the short term just to ensure some long term plan is in place.

However, I do not believe that is our problem.  Actually, the issue is the other way around.  Very rarely do I see real true long term thinking.  How could you identify if your organization is spending too much time on the here and now versus setting up your strategy for the long term?  Here are some indicators to look for:

1. Do you have any projects which span multiple years?  This is really a key indicator of strategic versus tactical thinking.  Tactical thinkers believe that somehow, magically, the whole world changes at the beginning of every year.  This, of course, is not true and therefore a strategic thinker is one who delivers todays results while working on a multi year strategy.  Very few real strategic plans and projects can be done in one year. 
2. Does your bonus plan involve a strategic component?  If you are paying bonuses to your employees, especially senior manager and above, only on a yearly basis (they start and stop in a year) than you must likely are too entrenched in tactics and are not thinking strategy.  A way to ensure some strategic thinking is occurring is to provide bonuses based on some kind of 3 year (or maybe even 5 year) result.  Why?  Imagine you want to create an incentive to your team to redesign your supply chain network for the future.  This is at least a 2-3 year project to get it installed then, most likely, another year or two to find out if it actually works.  If you provide bonuses to hit timelines and finish tasks then you are not paying for performance rather you are paying for activity.  Pay for activity and you will definitely get more activity - just not sure that is what you want. 
3. Every performance appraisal should have multi year projects on it.  Remko van Hoek (Twitter handle @remkovanhoek - Global Procurement Director for PwC and Visiting Professor at Cranfield School of Management) stated in an exchange that he has always had multi year projects on his goals for the last 3 roles he has been in.  This is the sign of a very strategic organization.  He also suggested said in a response to my tweet:  "Begin and end with the customer, think supply chain holistically, not silo, individual or quarterly gain".  Good advice and if you follow that you are pretty well assured that you will be thinking long term. 

Finally, I would like to address the issue of longevity in roles.  One of the big strategic problems is the speed with which people move around.  How can you ask someone to be strategic when they will be measured on just what they do this year and, if they do well, they will get promoted and move on.  For key roles (such as VP of Supply Chain) you have to inform them they will be in the role for 5 years and they will be measured on a 5 year performance cycle.  The first year or two are set up, then the last year 2 -3 years are execution.  Then and only then will you know if they did well and if they thought of and implemented a great strategy.  

If they come into a role, do some quick fix (slash costs) then get promoted I can assure you it will be a disaster.  

In the end, how you set up your culture and your rewards system will determine if you have a great strategy or just a bunch of disparate tactics. 

Warren Buffett once said (paraphrase):  Our business is not based on the orbit of the earth around the sun - meaning they do not set arbitrary targets and deadlines based on when January 1 comes along.  You should avoid doing that as well. 

Continue the conversation on Twitter using hashtag:  #Thinklongterm

The Battle for Retail Sales is Really The Battle of Supply Chains

I continue to believe the battle for retail sales is really all about the underlying supply chains rather than the actual store.  The "store experience" is losing its importance to the more broader "order fulfillment" experience.  The backbone of this order fulfillment experience is the underlying supply chain efficiency of the retail company.  The key metrics for consumers include:

1. How easy is it to find what I want on your site / store?
2. Is the product readily available? (final three feet logistics which I will write about later)
3. How quickly can you get that product?
4. Is it packaged in such a way that the product can survive the entire trip (from MFG to DC to store to your house).  Of course, the store part is increasingly being eliminated.
5. How easy can it be returned?  Here I think of packaging and labeling so if I buy the product and decide to return it the process is simple for me to repackage it and put it back in the supply chain stream to get back to a returns center
6. Is it low cost?
7. How easy is it to pay?
8. How quickly do I get the credit back if I have to return it?

All of this is enveloped by world class customer service (Think Zappos) which makes you feel great and enjoy the entire experience.  Think about how Disney World makes you enjoy what is essentially waiting in long lines.  This is what the order fulfillment customer experience has to be like. 

The battle is increasingly being waged between Amazon.com and Wal-Mart's on line brand.  I will not pretend to judge who wins in this case although I think it is clear if the game ended now Amazon would win.  What is not clear is whether they can continue winning given the massive head start Wal-Mart has had in developing its supply chain.  For expertise, Wal-Mart can just hire a bunch of Amazon people so I am not overly worried about the talent pool.  

Challenges facing Amazon now include the high cost of building out a massive infrastructure (which Wal-Mart already has), the change in sentiment for sales tax collection (plan on paying sales tax on all on line purchases soon) and the high cost of final mile delivery which is required for Amazon but not necessarily required for Wal-Mart (see my posting on Wal-Mart testing out a locker system and crowd sourcing their deliveries).

The problem for companies like Wal-Mart and other retailers is they are losing the "branding" war.  The name "Amazon" is becoming synonymous with on line shopping.  People I talk to really do not "shop" on line they just go to Amazon to buy what they want.  It is becoming what Marissa Mayer (New CEO of Yahoo) calls a "daily habit".  As a consumer, you decide whether you are going to go to a store or buy on line.  If you decide to buy on line you go directly to Amazon.  I am sure Wal-Mart has all sorts of statistics that try to pat themselves on their backs but reality is Amazon is building a brand which equates to on line shopping - The Amazon brand is to on line shopping what the term "Xerox" is to copiers.  If this hole gets too deep, Wal-Mart may not be able to dig out.  

For years, Wal-Mart has been known as the world class supply chain company.  However, they could be at the cross roads where their supply chain is so tightly wound and so tightly integrated to a "bricks and mortars" experience they cannot adapt to the on line requirements.  This would not be the first time a well managed and world class supply chain became trouble for a company.

Think Dell and how incredible they were in a tightly wound and highly efficient supply chain designed to build desktop and tower computers. A funny thing happened:  The consumer moved to laptops.  While no one wanted to look at desktops before they bought as most were under your desk hidden away (lending itself to a build to order, direct buy model) everyone wanted to look at laptops. Laptops are a visible appliance.  This meant a need for retail space.  Further, the build to order did not need factories.  Go to an Apple store or Best Buy, buy a laptop and right there they will upgrade memory, install devices etc. etc.  Dell's huge competitive advantage with towers and desktops became a competitive disadvantage in the move to laptops.  Due to their size, retailers were willing to display them as they did not take a lot of shelf space or store room space. Essentially the entire model for buying computers changed in what appeared to be an overnight transformation. Dell was not ready and cold not change quickly enough. 

If I were advising Wal-Mart I would study this well to ensure they do not make the same mistake relative to on line purchasing and competing with Amazon.  

In the end I believe Wal-Mart and the other big retailers can and should be able to beat Amazon.  Just like Dell could have and should have beaten Asus and just like Sears could have and should have beaten Wal-Mart.  One thing we do know is due to the Innovator's Dilemma big companies tend to get crushed eventually by small start ups .  What is fascinating is how these small start ups, once they become big, make the exact same mistakes and eventually get crushed.  This is phenomenon is described in detail in Clayton Christenson's seminal book titled "The Innovator's Dilemma" and why some big companies cannot see what is clearly in front of them is described in detail in the book "Denial" by Richard Tedlow (Both professors I had at HBS).  Should be required reading and I have put a link to those books below (Yes, through Amazon).

Supply Chain and Sustainability

Greenbiz and Supply Chain Insights conduct a survey on the different thoughts of supply chain organizations and sustainability organizations in a company.  This is very telling since I truly believe sustainability should be embedded in the operations of Supply Chain.  One certain way for sustainability to fail is for a company to believe it is the job of some "office" in corporate headquarters.

The chart to the left shows how disconnected the two are in many areas including supplier training and 3rd party audits.  While I think the audits are very good and should be used I find it very insightful to see that the sustainability offices believe industry consortium's are of more value than the supply chain individuals.

All of this has many facets to it and can be argued one or the other however the key message here is the two groups, sometimes within the same company are not aligned as to a strategy on how to execute against sustainability goals   When this alignment fails to occur you can almost be assured the goals themselves are in jeopardy.

Sustainability must be embedded in the 5 key areas of supply chain:

1. Extraction / procurement
2. Conversion
3. Distribution
4. Use
5. Disposal

If the operators of each of these areas are just going about their business and expecting a message from "on high" to tell them what to do I believe they are mistaken.  In each case, the operators must execute within the context  of the overall sustainability goals of a company.  This, of course, does not just mean carbon reduction but includes:

1. Fair trade type practices (not allowing child labor, bad work conditions, conflict minerals etc.)
2. Zero waste
3. Replace (if you have to extract, how do you replace to make a greener environment)
4. Reduction of all green house gases
5. Design of product so the use of the product will be sustainable
6. Renewable energy
7. Re-usable packaging and product

Of course there are a lot more and I just wanted to show that this cannot be done waiting on an expert.  Each and over operator must embed these ideas into their operation.  

And A Third Set of Predictions....

I bring you yet another set of predictions concerning supply chain for 2013.  Adrian has a fantastic track record for seeing into the future so I would pay attention to this.  I will not give the excruciating details as you really should go over to the posting "Supply Chain and Logistics Predictions for 2013" at Logistics Viewpoints.  Here is the summary:

1. Big Data, Social Media, Cloud Computing, and Mobile Technologies will continue to dominate the headlines
2. User Interfaces for Supply Chain Apps Will Get a Social Makeover.
3. “Siri” Comes to Enterprise Apps.
4. The Robots Keep Coming.
5. Continued Focus by Retailers and Service Providers on Innovating the Final Mile.
6. Further Blurring of the Lines Between 3PLs, Tech Providers, and Consultants. 
7.  Increased Adoption of Alternative Fuel Vehicles.
8. More Programs and Partnerships to Address the Talent Shortage Problem. 

The themes continue to remain similar except Adrian clearly has a social bent to his ideas which I highlighted in an earlier post.  I can't imagine any of these predictions being too far off the mark. 

IDC 2013 Supply Chain Predictions

Last night I sat through the archived broadcast of the 2013 supply chain predictions for manufacturers from IDC.  While it is a little bit of "mom, Country and apple pie" I do think it was a very good presentation as it summarized almost all the key supply chain challenges in one spot.  I would not say this was a "2013" prediction but rather a good primer on what supply chains always have to deal with and what should be in your playbook.  Some years one will be prioritized over another (for example they believe responsiveness and service will override cost in the year ahead) but overall these are the items you are always reviewing as you develop both tactical and strategic plans.

Here are the top 10 as they see it:

1. Resiliency becomes a priority for end users looking to master massive multidimensionality. 
• Prioritize flexibility, visibility and agility
• Mastering this will require you to deal with massive amounts of data. 
2. On the supply side of your supply chain, recognizing inherent cost of long lead times, end users will look at global networks through the lens of both regional and country level sourcing. 
• Finally companies will quantify the effect of long lead times. 
• Trade offs will be made - Most effective sourcing will take over from "low cost" sourcing as companies build tools to quantify the true costs of these activities [ this bullet is my commentary].
3. On the demand side of supply chain, recognizing the need for better service levels and mass customization, end users look again to postponement techniques and data analytics to drive more effective customer insights and smarter fulfillment. 
4. End user IT organizations must support a more productive supply chain ecosystem.
5. Service excellence becomes a strategic priority. 
6. Supply chains optimize omnichannel customer service and cost by enabling trustworthy, efficient and effective supply chains (TEE). 
• The consumer will demand value and trustworthiness (right product, right time, right place, right value).
7. End user supply chains focus efforts to improve collaboration both upstream with suppliers and downstream with customers to better compete in a faster world. 
• Sales and operations planning (S&OP) collaboration will be critical [ my commentary]
• Technology to bind business partners together and to facilitate the flow of information [ my commentary] will also be critical.
8. The modern supply chain gets smarter
• Integration
• Optimization
• Embedded analytics
9. Supply chains invest in technologies that enable visibility, virtualization, and visualization
10. The 'Big Data' era draws dawns for supply chain organizations (what prediction would be complete without mentioning "big data" - my comment)

Those are the 10 and most will say this is what I do all the time as we always are trying to figure out the perfect mix of all of these things.  I would agree.  However, it was very helpful to get it all in one spot and perhaps use a maturity model to rate your supply chain - where are you on each of these dimensions and how important is that dimension to your organization.  

Once you draw that out graphically you can then socialize it in your company and begin drawing out what your 3 - 5 year strategy will look like along with what tactics you may use next year.  

McDonalds - No Product Out of Stock - Ever!

I like it when a company knows and understands its core principles relative to the supply chain.  I see so many companies make the mistake of trying to develop a culture where everyone can suggest trade-offs.  When that happens then everyone has a great idea on what should come first, second and third in terms of priority.

In this article titled, McDonalds Wants to Be Assured of Delivery, the McDonalds Director of Global Supply Chain Integration and Logistics, Alex Bahr makes it pretty clear that first and foremost nothing can be out of stock - ever.  And, it is for a very simple reason: efficiency of the restaurants. He states:

"A typical McDrive needs to be able to handle 120 cars per hour in Europe, and as many as 150 to 160 cars per hour in the US. That leaves us no time to suggest alternatives if a product is out of stock."

I believe more supply chains need to be just this blunt on what the priorities are.  I once worked in automotive service parts where the objective was 80% of last nights orders are delivered by 10:00am the next day and the remaining 20% were delivered by the end of the day.  This was a "non-negotiable" standard and any cost cutting project had to be done in the context of this objective.  An idea which said we could save $xx dollars if we pushed delivery out a day was rejected immediately.

Clarity brings simplicity and unity of purpose for a team.  Are your supply chain objectives this clear?

Is The Apple Supply Chain in Trouble?

Forbes is questioning the efficiency of the Apple supply chain now that Tim Cook is running the company and not just the supply chain and operations.  I think this is a bit of a stretch and also a bit of hype as everyone tries to find issues with the leader.  I doubt very much if anything substantively has improved or devolved since Tim Cook took over the entire company - things don't "rust" that fast.

The future will tell however I would hate to be part of the millions of people who have counted Apple down for the count more than once.  It is a great company and will be for quite some time.

An Interesting Post On Value of Supply Chain MBA

20 years ago "plus" when I started in this industry I would not have even been able to tell you where to get a "supply chain MBA".  Usually it was finance or operations research degrees who somehow meandered into this field.

This is not true anymore and this blog post from "The Strategic Sourceror" explains why.

XPO Logistics - Insane Growth?

I just read a great article on XPO logistics which is growing their brokerage business very dramatically. I have been close to this company since it was just Express-1 and the leadership had the foresight to see the potential growth in brokerage.  They started this business at exactly the right time and now it is the fastest growing part of the business.

As you can see from the graph below (Source: Seeking Alpha) the revenues from brokerage are really taking off.  The other key point I draw from this graph is they have a really nice mix of business.

XPO Logistics

I think this is a company to watch very closely and it is at a major point.  They clearly have shown they have the capability to bring in acquisitions and grow the revenue.  Like most companies in a major growth period they are losing money but I do believe in the leadership and the strategy of the company.  

As a shipper, I have always loved doing business with companies in this sweet spot.  Big enough to do what I need them to do, they are willing to invest and yet they are small enough that you are a big player in their portfolio.  You generally get much better attention and you have the ability to be a core customer regardless of size. 

I could be wrong but I had the same feeling about Coyote Logistics when it was much smaller and so my intuition tends to be pretty good on these things.  Watch XPO.

Value Chain or Supply Chain

A fantastic discussion over at Supply Chain Index on the measurable differences between a "Supply Chain" and "Value Chain" (Value Chain vs Supply Chain).  Most use these terms interchangeably and this blog post really has given me cause for thinking about these terms. I even realized I did not have a tag or label for "Value Chain" which shows I thought of them as synonyms; Which they clearly are not.

Abby Mayer

Just as "logistics" has morphed into "supply chain" "supply chain" is now morphing into "value chain" in our industry lexicon.  However this blog post makes us think this over.

I am starting to think we have to reemphasize that these three terms are three distinct elements of the overall "cash to cash" cycle and getting goods to market.



Great job by Abby Mayer. Twitter: @indexgirl.

Supply Chain Index - A must read Blog and Twitter Handle: @SCInsightsLLC

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:

Operating Cash Flow (OCF) - Should it Be The "King" Metric?

In deference to the great writing at Supply Chain Digest by David Schneider (David K. Schneider and Company) I will not rewrite the premise of the article he wrote over at SCD titled "The One Best Supply Chain Metric". I will only say I highly encourage you to click on the link above and go to the article and read it if you are even remotely interested in a different metric to follow.

Now, on to my opinion (hopefully you have linked over and read the article):  Operating cash flow is a "king" metric or an "outcome" metric as some may call it.  It is the ultimate scorecard.  Are you truly making real money (i.e., Cash) or are you making "paper money" (through income statement shenanigans) and burning through cash?  Remember, the only thing which allows you to reinvest in your business is the generation of cash.  Measure cash in a big way.

I get very nervous when I hear companies want to "push out payables" not because I think it is just wrong to do but also because of the signal it sends which is their cash from operations is probably going down so they are grabbing a one time cash infusion from suppliers.

Ultimately, cash from operations will determine the success or failure of your business because ultimately you will run out of financing (of which pushing out payables is essentially that - you are financing through your suppliers) and investing options.  When that happens, if you are not generating cash from operations, you will find your "Emperor has no clothes".

The Case for Sustainable and Ethical Supply Chains

For most of my readers it will not come as a surprise I am a bit of liberal when it comes to ownership for the sustainability of your supply chain.  It is just a fact that companies must take ownership of this and your customers, more and more, are becoming "sustainable aware" of what it takes to get them your product.  Further, they are going to punish you for not caring for the environment.

But, what about ethics?  This is the next area and it is more difficult as it is harder to measure.  We know slavery is wrong and we know if we see great working conditions that is good.  However, what about in between?  Does $2 per day seem unethical even though when you account for purchase power parity it may not be too bad?  This is the dangerous area and precisely why companies have to take control of their entire supply chain and ensure there is nothing which can even be perceived as being unethical or immoral in how things are made, how people are treated and how the Earth is treated.

This article in Forbes on Sustainable and Ethical Supply Chains sums it up well.  Two big examples of problems and then fixes.  Nike in the '90s had real issues with this and Apple does today.  Both moved and are moving aggressively to tray to stop the unethical behavior and both have brand names that allow them a bit of latitude.  Bottom line:  They have provided so much value to the customer that the customer will forgive a transgression as long as they actively fix it and fix it fast.

The key question for you is whether your brand is that strong?  Most are not.  Most will be dead on arrival if they are seen to be exploiting people or the environment for financial gain.

The bottom line:  Take control of your supply chain, have a good code of conduct, demand compliance and put in strict audit systems to ensure compliance is occurring.  Trust but verify is the name of the game.

Don't let your zeal to jump on the outsourcing bandwagon cause you to put your brand and your entire company's future in jeopardy.

When Your Suppliers Tarnish Your Brand - Apple "Cry for Help"

I consistently talk about sustainability within your supply chain.  Most companies look inward on this.  But as this article, Apple's Cry for Help, calls out, you have to also look at your suppliers and even their suppliers.  Nothing kills a brand faster than a T.V. camera in Foxconn showing the nets they have to put under the windows to keep workers from committing suicide.

The New Face of Brokerage

I have really stayed away from endorsing certain companies just because I want to discuss more macro issues in the logistics industry however I will break with tradition for this post.  I am seeing a trend develop with brokers where it is not your "father's broker" anymore.  They truly are becoming logistics experts who do more than just "dial for diesels".

One such company I have talked to many times is Coyote Logistics. This company is young, aggressive, extremely smart and a leader in technology.  They listen and understand your needs then formulate solutions.

I say this because people who have been in the industry a long time (include me in this!) have a mindset of "no brokers".  We remember the days of brokers just calling and wanting your freight but taking no ownership in true logistics solutions.  They were "brokers" in ever sense of the word:  matching up buyers and sellers and that was it.  After meeting Coyote I can tell you the model I described above is dead.  Long live the new generation of brokers!

As a shipper you may want to look at companies such as Coyote to manage certain segments, certain promotional events, moves or even your full transportation needs.  It is not a one size fits all and there are reasons to use these new breed of brokers and reasons not to.  However, I would tell you that if you still have the mindset of "brokers are bad" I highly suggest you call Coyote and see if this new breed can change your mind.  It certainly did mine.

Supply Chains Used As An Extension of The Brand - Part 1

This week I am going to put some thoughts down about whether companies use their supply chain as an extension of their brand or just as an evil necessity that they would rather do without.  I have personally been involved in many companies and I have seen it done many ways.

Here are some characteristics of supply chains when used in the following manner:

1) Used as an extension

• Company does not separate the product from the acquisition experience for the customer. They are intertwined.
• Company puts protection of brand above all else (including cost).
• Company probably does not do a lot of outsourcing in supply chain (Do you want your brand in another person's hands?).
• Company cross trains between marketing, sales, product development and supply chain.
• Company is most likely not "stovepiped". In other words they are not organized around functional silos but rather around products, categories of products or channels / customers.
  

2) Not used as an extension

• The reverse of everything above.
• The customer gets additional feeling of benefiting when dealing with the supply chain. 
• Service is matched to the brand experience the company is going after
• Supply Chain is seen as a cost to be cut. 
• The big one:  When people in the commercial side of the business refer to themselves uniquely as "the business" and the supply chain is just something to execute at the lowest cost imaginable. 

This is just a short list and as I develop my thoughts further I am sure this list will be adjusted and added to.

Can anyone think of a company that makes their supply chain experience part of the brand v other companies which make it just a back office function?