Archive for the ‘Supply chain management’ Category

My thoughts on Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Supply Chain Planning System of Record – A video blog

Published April 11th, 2014 by Trevor Miles @milesahead 0 Comments

I was recently asked three questions on Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Supply Chain Planning System of Record. The three questions I was asked were:

  1. What do you think of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Supply Chain Planning System of Record?
  2. In your opinion, how does RapidResponse differentiate itself as a supply chain planning System of Record?
  3. From your experience, what is the level of understanding of planning systems of record in the market?

My answers were recorded and I thought I would share these videos with our readers… here is the first one. Hope you enjoy!

What do you think of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Supply Chain Planning System of Record?

You can check out my responses to question 2 and 3 as well:

The report positions vendors based on completeness of vision in the supply chain planning system of record market and on their ability to execute to that vision. If you’re interested in reading the full report, the Gartner document is available upon request at http://kinax.is/Gartner.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Milesahead, Supply chain management


7 Life Sciences Supply Chain Processes That Require an Integrated Approach

Published April 7th, 2014 by Trevor Miles @milesahead 0 Comments

The emerging or intensifying industry dynamics that I discussed in an earlier blog post, along with significant shifts in strategy, are having a direct and material impact on the way Life Sciences supply chains must operate. The compounded effect of a host of complexity drivers is creating the need for supply chain transformation. By satisfying the following seven supply chain processes in an integrated manner, Life Sciences teams will be better equipped for success in today’s new, complex world.

  1. Collaborative launch management – clinical, regulatory and commercial
  2. Jurisdictional control to respect regulatory needs during planning
  3. Consensus demand planning across affiliates and countries
  4. Risk evaluation and recovery to deal with shortages and FDA shutdowns
  5. Shortage analysis and reporting for FDASIA compliance
  6. Supply and capacity planning to balance demand across regions
  7. Expiry management to balance long supply lead times and shifting demand

Let’s take a look at each of these in more detail.

Coordinated Launches

The effective launch of a new product is critically important in any industry, but it is of particular importance in the Life Sciences industry given the long time it takes to bring a new drug to market from discovery through clinical trials and commercialization, with regulatory oversight and conformance throughout the process. When the ‘long tail’ trend is coupled with shorter patent protection, the margin and market captured during the early launch period will be crucial to the recovery of the R&D investment, and thus the pressure to streamline and coordinate clinical trials and the regulatory process with the commercial launch has become intense.

Revenue Trends throughout the Product Life Cycle

phamacutical supply chain graph

Jurisdictional Control

In addition, mandates by regulatory bodies require jurisdictional control of demand satisfaction to account for third country sourcing, validation, and shelf life requirements, amongst others. This requires sophisticated attribute based planning to link demand characteristics to supply characteristics while simultaneously analyzing and reducing expiry risk, especially when inventory postponement strategies are used.

Consensus Demand Planning

For tax, legal, and regulatory reasons, many Life Sciences companies establish semi-independent sales affiliates or subsidiaries in some jurisdictions or sell through third parties. Creating a consensus demand plan across all the affiliates and subsidiaries is not a trivial task. Often, each demand region will forecast in different units (doses, standard packs, grams of API, etc.); almost always in different currencies; at a different cadence (quarterly, monthly, weekly); and over different time horizons. However, manufacturing needs to create a single forecast using a consistent unit of measure so that they can net the demand against available supply and determine future manufacturing capacity needs. To make matters worse, the affiliates are often less than fully transparent about their on-hand inventory.

Risk Evaluation and Recovery (including Shortage Analysis and Reporting)

Current technical architectures do not provide the capabilities needed to address new requirements under FDASIA ̶ reporting obligations for drug shortage issues and more active inspection of production facilities for instance. Information flow is typically limited to EDI exchanges with little or no ability to understand, for example, the impact of an API supply de-commit on future treatment —drug or device— availability in a regulatory region. To do this, Life Sciences companies will require much greater visibility and what-if scenario capabilities to both inspect and affect the global supply chain across Third Party Operators and into the supply base.

Tender Analysis and Management

Many manufacturers lack the required process standardization in manufacturing, inventory and expiry management, and other core business disciplines to make the required trade-offs during tender analysis between demand satisfaction, expiry risk, and constrained capacity utilization, ultimately leading to effective supply and capacity planning to balance demand across regions. Collaboration across the players in the supply chain is often insufficient and inefficient to achieve these tradeoffs. Given the harsh penalties imposed for non-conformance, being able to make the trade-offs to maintain profitability span the life cycle of the tender, not simply the tender acquisition phase.

Expiry Management

Streamlining manufacturing and distribution processes in order to satisfy demand while reducing unit cost is therefore becoming increasingly important in order to maintain profitability, reduce inventories and enhancing competitiveness within the industry. This is especially true given the long manufacturing lead times, often as long as 12-18 months in bio-pharmaceuticals, which lead to the need for expiry risk and stop sell analysis capabilities to balance effective demand satisfaction with efficient capacity utilization.

A New Technology Paradigm for a New World

phamacutical supply chain graph #5Legacy demand planning and supply chain planning systems were not designed for today’s complexities, and consequently don’t meet the many challenges that have emerged. As a result, Life Sciences companies are adopting process improvements and new technologies targeted at removing business “silos,” improving collaboration, and increasing productivity.

For a true breakthrough, you need an integrated solution. People must be able to leverage a single system with one set of data, supported by comprehensive analysis and decision-making capabilities, no matter what the process or the problem.

To keep a finger on the pulse of the supply chain, today’s solutions must:

  • Embrace the reality that today’s supply chains are multi-enterprise in nature and, thus, must provide comprehensive visibility into the extended supply chain to regain an understanding of the manufacturing commitments and inventory positions throughout the supply network. Visibility is an essential pre-requisite for effective orchestration of the business.
  • Proactively bring to light major variances to plan, identifying not only specific events, but also identifying and quantifying the consequences to customer service, revenue, margin, and a number of other financial and operations metrics, and thereby flagging those that could do most harm to the business.
  • Arm decision-makers with scenario simulation capabilities for risk trade-off and response, to model and compare situations quickly and appropriately to ensure a profitable response is put into action. And it must facilitate and incorporate human judgment, since many of the decision requirements are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to capture in a mathematical model — the foundation of an optimization system.
  • Foster collaboration for team-based decisions that tap the collective insight of the right people in the organization — those that understand the potential impact of any event and proposed action alternatives.

 

Posted in Best practices, Demand management, Milesahead, Pharma and life sciences supply chain management, Supply chain management


5 Drivers of Supply Chain Complexity in the Life Sciences Industry

Published March 31st, 2014 by Trevor Miles @milesahead 0 Comments

I’ve attended several Life Sciences events recently (including Biomanufacturing Summit) and it’s quite clear that these supply chain teams are working in a new, complex world. Not only do they need to meet diverse customer expectations, but they need to do so while coordinating an extended supply chain, in an environment that is constantly changing. Additionally, they’re faced with a set of five industry trends that are driving complexity even further.

1.       Exceedingly Distinct Markets

Through accidents of history and industrial capabilities, the Life Sciences industry has developed to satisfy principally the diseases of the affluent West, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, and obesity, while paying less attention to the diseases prevalent in the developing world, such as malnutrition, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and TB. This has led to a drug market segmented by geography and demographics, with companies in the emerging markets focused on satisfying the ‘local’ diseases. But in recent years, with the rapid expansion of the middle class in many emerging economies, many of the ‘Western’ diseases are increasing rapidly in the middle classes of the emerging markets – for example diabetes in India – stretching local healthcare provision while opening opportunities for expansion into these countries. While at the same time innovations by companies in emerging markets are challenging the market leadership of well-established Life Sciences companies in the West.

2.       Increased Outsourcing

With tremendous opportunities for growth in emerging markets, many manufacturers have executed aggressive globalization and outsourcing strategies, while relying increasingly on Third Party Operators (TPOs) in India and China for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) supply and subcomponents, or even the manufacturing of complete devices. Coming along with these shifts is an increase in business complexity and supply chain risks given the varying regulations across global supply chains and longer and riskier supply chains.

3.       New Regulations

With this rapid increase in the use of TPOs has come added risks to quality and of counterfeiting, leading the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to push for the passage of the Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), which focuses on the risks inherent in an increasingly global Life Sciences supply chain. Much of the public comment has been on the two user fee reauthorizations, as well as two new user fee programs, and the reauthorization for pediatric research. But buried deep in the text are provisions for supply chain validation – in both domestic and off-shore plants – and drug shortages that will have a profound impact on outsourced and global supply chains.

Stefanie Johns, Ph.D., Program Manager, Xavier Health Initiatives, commenting on conference sessions at Xavier University, states that:

“The new powers from FDASIA will level the playing field between foreign and domestic sites, enhance transparency and collaboration with foreign regulators, and shift focus “away from the border to a global safety net.” FDASIA also provides the FDA with new tools to destroy counterfeit products, misbrand products on the basis of inspection refusal, and deliver criminal penalties for intentional adulteration. In order to streamline resources, the FDA will be moving towards a risk-based inspection system and will work with foreign regulatory counterparts.”

In summary, the impact of FDASIA on the Life Sciences supply chain will come from provisions for:

  • reporting of drug shortage issues, and the penalties associated with not informing the FDA;
  • and more active inspections of production facilities, including sites in other countries, including those belonging to Third Party Operators.

 

Outsourcing in the Pharmaceutical Industry

phamacutical supply chain graph #1Source: Frost and Sullivan Global Bio-Pharma CMO Market Report,“ May 2010

 

4. Shift in Treatment Focus

One side effect of FDASIA is the fast-tracking of approval for treatments that address an ever narrower spectrum of diseases. Of particular importance to rare disease patients, and likely to help encourage further investment, is the Breakthrough Therapies Act addressing the need to provide expedited development and evaluation of potential therapies that show promise early in the research process; and the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases which aims to encourage and speed up the development of new drugs for rare and neglected diseases.

Included in the Breakthrough Therapies Act is a voucher system that allows companies developing rare pediatric diseases to obtain a transferable voucher which they can use for the expedited approval of another treatment, whether that treatment satisfies the requirements for priority review or not.

The trend to ever more targeted products is widespread across most industries whether Life Sciences, High-Tech/Electronics, or Consumer Goods. In the past, the limited markets coupled with the fact that many of the patients were in less affluent areas of the world, were a disincentive to major Life Sciences companies that were addressing a large set of diseases with broad spectrum therapeutics. However, with many of the major disease categories covered effectively by existing treatments, combined with the fact that a) many treatments are reaching the end of their patent protection period, b) growing competition from generics, and c) increasing scrutiny from regulatory bodies have all led to a rapid shift in focus of research, as well as mergers and acquisition activity toward rare diseases. (While there isn’t a universally accepted definition of a rare disease, the US government defines a rare disease as one afflicting fewer than 200,000 Americans, while the European Union defines a rare disease as one afflicting fewer than 1 in 2,000 people.)

 

Innovation versus Cost

phamacutical supply chain graph #2

 

A report released by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in 2011 emphasized the extent of this shift away from broad spectrum drug research focused on diseases with large patient bodies to narrow spectrum drugs focused on rare diseases. According to the PhRMA report there were a record 460 medicines for rare diseases either in clinical trials or awaiting FDA review at the time the report was published.

To overcome the economic barriers associated with the discovery and development of diagnostic equipment, drugs and devices to treat rare disease, big Life Sciences companies have been pursuing collaborations, acquisitions, and joint ventures, often with companies in India and China.

This search for ‘long tail’ drugs will mean that Life Sciences must also deal with increasingly complex demand patterns. They have to simultaneously deal with predictable patterns for mid-life cycle products and highly unpredictable patterns for new introductions. They typically have to manage both low volume, high mix products that require quick response for clinical trials and high volume products that require ramped production and global delivery capabilities.phamacutical supply chain graph #3

5.       Shorter Patent Protection

An aging product portfolio, along with a future of shorter patent periods in general, with limited opportunities for patent extensions (as demonstrated by the recent challenge by the Indian government of patent extensions based upon reformulation), only serves to reinforce the critical requirement for supply chain efficiency and effectiveness, in order to capitalize fully on the opportunities while they exist.

These industry trends are having a significant impact on the way supply chains must operate. And unfortunately, there is growing evidence that existing technology architectures are not satisfying the capability needs for this new, complex world. In an upcoming blog post, I’ll be looking at seven supply chain processes (including jurisdictional control, expiry management, supply and capacity planning) that require an integrated approach to overcome these complexity drivers.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Inventory management, Milesahead, Pharma and life sciences supply chain management, Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply chain management


March Networks: The World of High-Tech Security – Kinaxis & SupplyChainBrain Series

Published March 28th, 2014 by Melissa Clow 0 Comments

SupplyChainBrain attended our annual Kinexions user conference, and while there, they completed a number of video interviews with customers, analysts, and Kinaxis executives. And, we’d like to share them!

In this interview, hear Sue Montgomery, senior business analyst with March Networks, speak about the challenges her company faces in gaining full visibility of supply and demand, and in dealing with increasing supply-chain volatility. March needed visibility on a global basis, in order to reach manufacturing and configuration facilities in China, Australia, Mexico, the U.K. and U.S. Vendor purchases depend on a forecast that was difficult to put together. In addition, the company needed to monitor all of its vendor-consigned inventory.

March’s automated system, obtained from Kinaxis, keeps a close eye on purchasing patterns, making sure that buyers adhere to contracts with preferred vendors. It really helps us to monitor and make sure that [contract manufacturers] are buying our contracts at the right price and right time, Montgomery says. Other benefits of the application include better management of inventory, and a reduction in excess or obsolete materials.

Previously, we featured interviews with:

 

March Networks: The World of High-Tech Security – Interview summary

Sue Montgomery, March Networks was interviewed by SupplyChainBrainMarch Networks is a provider of video surveillance equipment. Its products can be found in the retail and banking sectors, as well as on buses and trains. All production is done by contract manufacturers, says Montgomery.

The company’s priority was obtaining a consolidated view of supply and demand. When Montgomery joined March Networks, it had three business units with separate enterprise resource planning systems, obtained through acquisition. Getting access to key information could take a couple of weeks, due to manual processes and the use of spreadsheets. The result was a serious data backlog.

March needed visibility on a global basis, in order to reach manufacturing and configuration facilities in China, Australia, Mexico, the U.K. and U.S. Vendor purchases depend on a forecast that was difficult to put together. In addition, the company needed to monitor all of its vendor-consigned inventory.

March’s automated system, obtained from Kinaxis, keeps a close eye on purchasing patterns, making sure that buyers adhere to contracts with preferred vendors. RapidResponse really helps us to monitor and make sure that [contract manufacturers] are buying to our contracts at the right price and right time, Montgomery says. Other benefits of the application include better management of inventory, and a reduction in excess or obsolete materials.

March’s priority on the supply-chain side is keeping costs down. They are doing effective cost management, and working closely with our R&D group to make sure they’re designing with cost-effective components, says Montgomery.

Posted in Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply chain collaboration, Supply chain management


The Innovator’s Dilemma: How Does it Apply to Supply Chain?

Published March 26th, 2014 by CJ Wehlage 2 Comments

It has been said that the business book that most influenced Steve Jobs was ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’. Considering the success Jobs experienced in his lifetime, I’m intrigued as to what he learned from it. We all know Jobs was a highly successful businessman, for example, Apple stock increased nearly 7,000% during the time Steve returned to Apple in August 1997 until passing the reins over to Tim Cook in August 2011.  It made me wonder what this book means to the supply chain business. So I decided to read ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’. But when I read it, I inserted the word “Supply Chain” where “Product” was mentioned.

I’d like to share some insights I gleaned from the book:

Clayton Christensen, author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma’ said,

“The reason why successful companies fail is they invest in things that provide the most immediate and tangible evidence of achievement.”

In ‘supply chain speak’, that means the inability to link strategy with execution.  Most of us get caught in the day–to-day challenge of running the business. For example, planners spend endless hours on finding and resolving exceptions. There’s just not enough time in the day to focus on strategy and innovation.

A very good method I have used when leading supply chain strategies, is to focus on the decisions, rather than the information.   Asking, “What margin do I need this network to have for the first three months of NPI?” is better than asking “How can we get safety stock data to match between systems?”

Why is this better?  I say because of “critical thinking”. Planning is a combination of systems and human judgment. Too many planning organizations rely only on the system output. Yet, with complexity and volatility in today’s global network, critical thinking is just as important to solve the planning challenge.

I have a saying: ‘Information isn’t Power, Informative Decisions is Power’.  Figure 1 shows a very common supply chain decision flow.

Information isn’t Power, Informative Decisions is Power

Reactive supply chains manage right to left, meaning the majority of their time is driven by the impact (low profitability, excess inventory, shortage, etc).  Predictive supply chains manage left to right, meaning they simulate the plan for desired impact, and then execute.  The majority of their time is doing critical thinking and collaborative scenarios.   All supply chains bounce between reactive and predictive.  However, a heavy focus on reactive makes a more efficient supply chain, and solves today’s issue. However, it doesn’t make for a more effective supply chain or solve forward looking issues such as profitability, total cost to serve and market share.

Another good book to read is ‘Profit Mapping’.  A quote I really like is:

“We see many instances where a company may have become more efficient when viewed through a process improvement lens, but not necessarily more effective as far as the business is concerned.”

Being more effective at operating margins and inventory turns (two very good supply chain metrics) only occurs with predictive planning and critical thinking.  And, while efficient supply chain leaders can improve their KPI’s, most industries find it difficult to sustain that improvement. See the research table from Supply Chain Insights LLC presented at their 2013 Supply Chain Insights Global Summit.

 

 

Pretty much across the board, sustaining growth in turns and operating margin beyond three years is not likely to happen. Typically, progress stalls after two years.

The three reasons found to stall progress

1. Functional leadership

Today’s supply chain continues to focus on functional fixes, such as purchasing, logistics, etc.  With the network so complex, global, and outsourced, the greater impact is on your ability to manage the end-to-end process.   This requires not only visibility of end-to-end, but also, the ability to simulate and collaborate end-to-end.  It has less to do about your ERP system, and more to do with the entire network’s planning capabilities.

2. Complexity of systems used

Many companies have multiple systems, multiple ERP instances, and in many cases, functional systems bought for functional purposes.  Middleware is everywhere, and spreadsheets rule the day.  I’m not talking about the number of systems, because when you think about “end-to-end”, you now include all your 1st and 2nd Tier suppliers, 3PLs, distributors, etc.. Face it, there are a lot of systems.  I’m talking about the justification of the landscape.   It’s difficult to justify a functional system for an end-to-end process.

3.       Lack of a supply chain strategy

Lack of a supply chain strategyI’ve seen many supply chain leaders, while working on a supply chain strategy, get caught in the idea that data needs to be cleaned before innovation.   Don’t get me wrong, clean data is a good thing. But, how you go about getting there is the innovation.  Rather than spending countless hours of data cleanup, look at your most critical end-to-end processes, ask what knowledge is needed to plan and execute, and pareto the data needed to execute and fix.

 

The Roadmap to Sustainable Progress

Clayton has a statement in ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’, “great managers…must first understand what has caused those circumstances and what forces will affect the feasibility of their solutions.”  I believe there are three core steps a supply chain can take to achieve end-to-end control.

Step 1: Collect end-to-end data, and the policies that drive the data

  • Data is good, but the policies that drive the data, especially when considering the time/events that drove the rules, like beginning of the month, last quarter, etc.
  • With the end-to-end data, set control limits to the policies.  When an issue arises, effective alerts go off, keeping the planners focused on core priorities

Step 2: Improve planning by launching what-if capabilities

  • With end-to-end data, you will have exposed the bad data.  Start your first simulations around what policies are most impacted with that bad data.  This will drive the pareto of what data absolutely needs to be fixed.
  • Yesterday vs today: run what if scenarios that tell you each morning what has changed from yesterday, and what are the most critical actions for today.
  • Informative decisions: simulate what it would take for higher profit, better turns, less excess inventory, better COGS, etc…

Step 3: Segment your end-to-end priorities

  • Segment your products and customers. Simulate various supply chain policies against those segments.  Test the attributes that make up each segment

Great supply chains need to align a strategy with the execution.  Putting an intense focus on simulation in Planning allows you to prepare in advance of the impacts.  And that’s summarized well in the book Profit Mapping:

“a wise manager knows that success only comes with operational excellence that is properly aligned with strategy.  The challenge is knowing what actions to take and when to take them – navigating without knowing the impact of your actions on the bottom line is a risk you can’t afford to take.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Demand management, Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply chain management


On the road again! LogiPharma Europe – April 8-9, 2014

Published March 25th, 2014 by Alissa Hurley 0 Comments
_Trevor Miles

Trevor Miles, vice president of thought leadership and industry principle, life sciences

We’re excited to be participating in LogiPharma Europe 2014 in Basel, Switzerland!

This year’s conference is focused on Supply Chain as a Customer Centric Function.

Join us for a roundtable discussion on April 8th on how to leverage the cloud to achieve true innovation in supply chain management. And, on April 9th, Trevor Miles is leading a session entitled Continuous S&OP – Breaking the Mold. In this session, he will discuss how business and technology has changed tremendously in the thirty years since S&OP was first defined, enabling much more proficient and integrated S&OP processes. Trevor will describe how companies are breaking the traditional S&OP mold from both a process and technology perspective.

During the conference follow hashtag #LogiPharma  and stop by the Kinaxis booth #21 to meet with the team and learn more about how Kinaxis has helped life science companies adopt process improvements and technology targeted at removing business “silos,” improving collaboration, and achieving significant operations performance breakthroughs. Find out more about RapidResponse for life sciences at: http://kinax.is/pharm.

More about the conference:
LogiPharma is the ONLY VP-level, end-to-end supply chain event for life science professionals, focusing on strategic and tactical improvements for Europe & the rest of the world. It caters to professionals from across the spectrum of innovative pharma, generics, animal health as well as bio tech companies, tackling the most relevant, pressing challenges and opportunities present in the industry

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in General News, Milesahead, Pharma and life sciences supply chain management, Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply chain collaboration, Supply chain management


Making Connections at Kinexions – Our customers say it all – Part 3

Published December 12th, 2013 by Trevor Miles @milesahead 0 Comments

A couple of weeks ago we had a user and prospect conference in Tokyo, which I was fortunate enough to attend and present at. I covered the North American conference in two previous blogs – Part 1 and Part 2.

I was surprised when I worked out that it had been 10 years since I was last in Japan. I was supposed to speak at our user conference in 2011, but it was just a few weeks after the tsunami, so we cancelled the conference. What surprised me is that the after effects of the tsunami did not come up at all in discussions. Of course there are many cultural and social reasons why the after effects may not have come up. And, looking back on my time there, I have to admit that I did not ask our customers and prospects about the effects of the 2011 tsunami on their business.

What I did notice is that the economy does seem to have picked up after many years of stagnant growth. Notice the huge dip in 2011, the year of the tsunami, which is surpassed only by the dip in 2009. According to data from the World Bank, Japan’s average growth rate since 1990 is only 1.14%.

This diagram does not tell the full story. Growth in industrial production, which used to be the heart of the Japanese growth, has been largely negative since 1990. According to the World Bank, manufacturing as a percent of GDP has dropped by 7% since 1990 to 18.6% in 2012. That is a big drop, but things seem to be looking up. Clearly the automotive and industrial machinery sector is the largest, with consumer electronics a somewhat distant second.

This brings me to a fantastic customer story by Konica Minolta, which has been growing about 4.5% since 2010 with net profit margin averaging nearly 25%. Clearly this is a very nice performance given the recent drop in global presence of the Japanese consumer electronics industry. While their inventories have been quite flat for the past 3 years, they have been able to reduce inventories by over 35% since 2000, while growing largely outside of Japan. This is not an easy feat.

But it is their future ambitions that really caught my attention. They have been using Kinaxis for Sales and Operations Planning (or SIOP as it is called in Japan). Their plan is to expand into essentially Integrated Business Planning (IBP), in which they will be generating a rolling budgeting forecast. Of course there is a lot more that goes into budgeting, but there are few companies I know that are driving a bottoms-up revenue forecast from Operations. Usually the revenue number is a top-down mandate from the executives. I am under no illusion that Konica Minolta’s executive will still provide a top-down target for revenue and other financial and operational metrics, but what is interesting to me is that they will have bottoms-up numbers which they can use to compare and rationalize the top-down targets.

Of course Konica Minolta will also generate the tactical plan with Kinaxis too. As they stated in their presentation, a volume or aggregate only S&OP plan is not sufficient. While the volume plan may capture the revenue with sufficient accuracy, it is only at the mix or detailed level where the problems can be identified and the true costs calculated. Without the ability to navigate seamlessly between a volume and mix plan, all you are left with in the S&OP cycle is essentially a consolidated forecast.

Even in their current S&OP deployment they gave a great example of needing to model everything at the daily level in order to get accurate time bucket consolidation across countries/regions (which use different calendars) and functions (which require different levels of aggregation). They had been planning in weekly buckets and struggling to get accurate conversions from weeks into months, quarters, and years. And vice versa, when they wanted to make changes at a more aggregate level. By deploying Kinaxis they increased the data size 7 fold (weeks to days) and saw calculation times go from many hours in their previous solution to minutes with Kinaxis, all while being able to support seamless transitions between volume and mix planning.

The Konica Minolta team asked me to talk to them about best practice S&OP in the US. I didn’t have much to tell them. Instead I asked them if I could talk about what they are doing to customers and prospects in the US. It really is a great story.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Miscellanea, Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply chain management


Speed as the true Innovation in Supply Chain

Published December 10th, 2013 by CJ Wehlage 2 Comments

Wow, I am recalling a great three days in Dallas, Texas this past week at the WTG Supply Chain and Logistics North American conference.  I went for a run in sunny 75 degree weather!

Now, I’m back in San Diego and just finished reading a post from a friend who is an American Airline attendant. She came to Dallas the day after I flew out, to do Airbus training.  Her blog described how she was stuck at the airport due to hundreds of canceled flights – freezing weather that went down to 20 degrees!

It looks like I left just at the right time. As the saying goes, “timing is everything…”.  This saying is much like my presentation at the conference: the topic of speed as the true innovation in supply chain. Not just speed to be fast, but velocity, which is speed moving in a specific direction.

That’s what I believe is the next innovation in supply chain. I grabbed some of my old AMR Research Top 25 data, and looked at the results of supply chain processes and tools.  It seemed like in a recession, supply chains focused on reducing costs. Lean was the top challenge.  In recovery periods, supply chains focused on improving efficiencies. Demand forecast accuracy was the top challenge. Supply chains responded in kind with functional lean efforts or functional demand forecasting projects. I love Lora Cecere’s (Supply Chain Insights) chart on “Progress in Inventory Turns and Operating Margin (2000-2012)”.  One of the best pieces of research data I’ve seen in a long while.

This shows pure “functional” focus from every industry.  Very limited “end-to-end” focus.  Consumer electronics shows a good 18% for consecutive improvement in turns and operating margin for two years.  But, for 3 consecutive years… 0%! For four consecutive years…another 0% !   Supply chains have been focusing on a few nodes of the network, and placing functional processes & tools in place to address the challenge.   If you ask a functional question to a bunch of functional systems, you will always get a functional result.   And functional results will never bring consecutive, sustaining improvements.

At Kinaxis, we have the motto: Know Sooner, Act Faster.  That’s the innovation.  Speed with direction.  Stop asking functional questions and ask end-to-end questions.  And that requires significantly faster analytics across the functional nodes.   Better said, significant velocity.  Yes, it does mean pure speed when a supply chain acts.  But, it also means speed in the right direction.  And speed comes from planning ahead, through simulating scenarios in advance of the challenge.  In fact, after reading the past seven years of Top 25 Supply Chain research, the one thing the best on this list do is: What-If planning. It is not a PhD in the corner working for days,but a core facet of their Planning.

I challenged the attendees on “Know Sooner, Act Faster”.  What do you truly “know” about your supply network.  One of the best ways to answer that question is “how much fire fighting do you do ?”.   If you are fire fighting, you are losing.  You haven’t planned ahead.  You are losing profit & margin to accomplish what an effective simulation could have prepared you for.   Tough words, sure, but great supply chain leadership should reward knowing sooner more, fire fighting less.

Then, we talked about “Acting Faster”.   I asked the audience what the first 10 minutes of every CPFR meeting was.  Answer =  Comparing Data!   That’s the best way to determine if you can act fast.  If you are checking which set of numbers each node is using, you will lose speed.  Every node has to be working off the same version of the plan.

The next great innovation in supply chain is Speed.  And, for the best supply chains, it’s quickly becoming table stakes to have your suppliers, distributors, shippers, etc, on the same plan, acting within minutes of a change, and simulating scenarios for end-to-end network turns and operating margin.  Why?  I say because the consumer is using technology to speed up their decision and purchase.  Every industry has seen their consumer build leverage, and demanding personalized attention.  Supply chain networks need to address this attention by knowing a lot sooner and acting a lot faster.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Demand management, Response Management, Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply chain collaboration, Supply chain management, Supply chain risk management