Posts Tagged ‘Management’

Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: A Focus on Aerospace and Defense

Published July 14th, 2014 by Melissa Clow 0 Comments

metrics that matterJust a quick post to share some research courtesy of Lora Cecere of Supply Chain Insights LLC.

Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: A Focus on Aerospace and Defense

Increased complexity, slowed growth and shrinking margins are challenging the Aerospace and Defense (A&D) sector. According to recent research from Supply Chain Insights, A&D companies need a renewed focus on collaboration, visibility and core supply chain capabilities to remain competitive and win new business.

In Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: A Focus on Aerospace and Defense, Supply Chain Insights benchmarks A&D companies against other industries and dives into data from five top A&D companies over the last decade. The research highlights the supply chain challenges for this industry, as well as the critical importance of getting it right.

Complimentary report courtesy of Lora Cecere of Supply Chain Insights LLC.

Get the supply chain research >>

Posted in General News, Sales and operations planning (S&OP)


The Future Supply Chain Workforce: Can Supply Chain Organizations Balance Their own Demand and Supply?

Published June 2nd, 2014 by Lori Smith 1 Comment

future of supply chain workforceThe central theme of the Gartner Supply Chain Executive conference last week was all about supply chain leading the next decade.  I too believe this to be the case – both out of necessity and because of the progressive evolution of the function. But a function doesn’t lead, people do.  So who are these people that will manage and contribute to supply chain management in the next decade?  Well, going by the sessions at the Gartner conference, there will seemingly be a lot of roles that will be difficult to fill, and for those roles that are occupied, they will be increasingly held by women and many millennial. The face of supply chain is most certainly changing, and it’s happening at the same time as the profile and dependency on supply chain is intensifying.  Ironically, for an industry that is all about balancing supply and demand, there doesn’t appear to be much balance when it comes to its own human resources going forward.  It’s time for supply chain organizations to do a reality check and apply some basic planning and course correction initiatives within their own internal organizations.

Consider these opposing trends that are driving significant resource gaps (thank you to keynote speaker, Linda Topping, Vice President, Chief Procurement Officer at Colgate Palmolive for some of the stats included below):

Increasing demand

# of supply chain jobs will rise 25% in next decade.

Shrinking workforce

25% of workforce will reach retirement by 2015.

How do you fill more jobs with less people?

Increasing capabilities required

Less than 20% of today’s workforce have the skillset required.

Depleting experience and lagging academia

As experienced workforce retires, key supply chain competencies will depart along with them. And while the number of supply chain university programs is increasing, the scope and depth of curriculum is lagging behind current needs.

As supply chains become more complex, the sophistication of the supply chain function is increasing and so too must the analytical capabilities of the people that run it. Where will that come from?

More millenials

Millennials will account for 36% of the workforce by 2015, and 75% of workforce by 2025.

Slow to change organizations

Millennials expect:

  • Personally fulfilling work
  • Sense of culture and community
  • Flexibility
  • Career movement
  • Flatter, less-hierarchical organizations
  • Social and collaborative environments
  • Highly technology-enabled work

Millennial’s want more out of their work environments and because of the industry’s resource constraints they will have the power to demand it. Who will fight or face this fact?

Increasing capability needs

According to a session I attended on “Revelations from Gartner’s 6th Annual Supply Chain User Wants and Needs Study” by Gartner analyst, Dwight Klappich, the basic conclusion is that while organizations talk about the urgent need for transformational and innovative technologies, for many, their activities and investments remain very tactical and focused on maintaining existing technologies.

Despite survey respondents citing that among their top supply chain challenges were the inability to orchestrate the end-to-end supply chain, and the lack of cross-functional collaboration, 61% of technology investments are made with the goal to reduce operating and support costs.

Continued investment in legacy technology systems

Paraphrasing the presentation, companies continue to spend on the technologies they already have in place; they are investing in what they know, instead of what’s new.

There is a disproportional amount of money going to just “keep the lights on”. Less than 20% of budgets are spent on technologies intended to transform the business, whereas upwards of 50-70% is spent on technologies that run the business.

Make no mistake, technology is a resource issue. Technology is what can enable efficiencies that require less people. Technology is what can arm supply chain decision makers with the advanced analytical capabilities that today’s supply chain complexity necessitates. Technology is what can satisfy the millennial’s appetite for effective and “cool” ways to work.

Ultimately, technology is what will enable the supply chain to lead in the next decade.

There is one trend that is going in the right direction I believe… the increasing quantity and prominence of women in supply chain.

I know this topic has been talked to at length, even on this blog (and we have an upcoming webcast on this topic as well – get more details here), but it hit home again for me at the Gartner conference.  It was satisfying and inspiring to say the least, to see that women represented the majority of the main-stage sessions – 5 out of 8 speakers in fact.  And they were informative and engaging speakers on top of that, leaving no doubt to anyone their credibility and effectiveness…not that this was something they needed to prove.  These were not women supply chain leaders; they were simply supply chain leaders.  And to me, that should be the goal as we look towards defining the next decade.  It shouldn’t be about categories of people, but about their skills, experience and success.

Having said that, I do believe today’s environment does favor a women’s strengths if we were to generalize.  I think Tom Peters (influential business thinker & co-author of In Search of Excellence), also a Gartner keynote, said it best. “Guys do hierarchy well, women do ambiguity well.”  In a time of complexity and variability, effective supply chain management becomes about consensus decision making and collaborative trade-offs. There is certainly an argument to be made that managing in these conditions could come more naturally to females (the same could be true for millennial with their innate social and collaborative predispositions).

The mission will be to make sure companies enable these leaders with the organizational structure, processes, culture, and technologies that are required to empower them in new and evolving roles.  Given the demand, those that don’t take this to heart will no doubt be scrambling for supply.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply Chain Events


Mentoring, Sponsorship and Quotas: What are their relative merits in bringing more women into supply chain management?

Published May 27th, 2014 by Melissa Clow 0 Comments

Next week, June 5, 2014, we are excited to host a webcast on women in supply chain management.

We have a fantastic panel of accomplished female supply chain practitioners as well as industry expert Lora Cecere serving as the moderator. Register for the webcast to hear them discuss the thorny issues of mentoring, sponsorship, and quotas as mechanisms to get more women into supply chain, and the relative merits and drawbacks of these approaches.

Mentoring, Sponsorship, & Quotas: What are their relative merits in bringing more women into supply chain management?

Event Details:
Mentoring, Sponsorship, & Quotas: What are their relative merits in bringing more women into supply chain management?
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014
Time: 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM ET

There is a consensus that since women constitute over half of the workforce but just 10% of top supply chain executive positions in Fortune Global 500 companies that something needs to be done to address this imbalance. While a great deal of attention gets placed on the ‘glass ceiling’ concept, there are a lot of women who face barriers and discrimination at mid and entry level positions too.  There is a clear social responsibility need and this panel will focus on the practical advantages to having more women in supply chain including:

  • Do women and men make decisions differently? If so, why does this matter to supply chain?
  • Has supply chain become more relevant to women as a career option?
  • What does a career path look like for women in supply chain?

Reserve your spot!

P A N E L I S T S :
Verda Blythe, Director, Grainger Center for Supply Chain Management, Wisconsin School of Business
Laura Dionne, Director, Worldwide Operations Planning, TriQuint
Elisabeth Kaszas, Director, Supply Chain, Amgen Inc.
Shellie Molina, VP, Global Supply Chain, First Solar

M O D E R A T O R :
Lora Cecere, Founder, Supply Chain Insights

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in General News, Pharma and life sciences supply chain management, 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


The Gender Divide in Supply Chain – 3 Questions That May Show We Are Looking at the Wrong Issue

Published March 5th, 2014 by Trevor Miles @milesahead 3 Comments

I like to think of myself as a champion for women in all walks of life. And in terms of the supply chain, I believe there are female characteristics that we can and should leverage a lot more, specifically their more collaborative and consensual approach to solving problems. Of course I understand that these are generalizations. Prejudice is devaluing characteristics particular to one group, and assuming that a particular member of a group conforms to the broad generalizations about that group. I hope I do neither.The Gender Divide in Supply Chain

Why do I write about this topic now? Well, it is International Women’s Day for one, but it is also a topic I have written about before when commenting on the HSBC ‘Thank Heaven for Little Girls’ campaign and on a panel about women in supply chain at a John Gattorna conference in Singapore.

Here are some links to other resources for International Women’s Day:

If we understood and valued more the right skills needed in today’s environment, would that naturally translate to more women in the supply chain?

In addition, we sponsored a day during the recent SCM World Live conference devoted to the topic of women in the supply chain. Kevin O’Marah wrote a summary of the day titled ‘Women in supply chain: a bias for action’ in which he comments that his key take-aways from the day were the need for:

  • Quotas
  • Systemic support
  • Structural support
  • Advocacy
  • Fill the front end of the pipeline
  • Look laterally for talentgender divide in supply chain infographic
As you can imagine, this list generated quite a lot of debate, particularly the questions of quotas. Christina De Luca, VP of Procurement and Supply Chain for BP, was very articulate in stating that the quotas of the 1970s, when she started working, were wrong in that all they looked at was filling a certain number of positions with women. In Christina’s view the characteristics that we look for and the criteria we use to select people has to change because these have been skewed towards men. Her view, with which I agree, is that, when compared with the 1970s, or even the 1990s, business is now operating in a much more volatile world. And it’s not going to change. To quote her from the session:

That predictable, stable world which allowed us to make decisions in isolation, hierarchically, is gone.

It requires a way of working, a skill set that is completely different. We need to talk with and collaborate with colleagues and competitors.

I agree whole heartedly. As Kevin Shriver of Land O’Lakes said on a panel, if more than 50% of the population is women and less than 20% of the people in senior supply chain positions are women, then by default we cannot be hiring the most talented people.  This gets us back to the issue of the characteristics that we look for and the criteria we use to select people.

By a show of hands in the room at the SCM World Live event, a very clear majority of the women, which by definition are women who have risen to high positions in a company, had husbands who had stayed at home with the children so that these women could devote the time to climb the corporate ladder.   On a personal note, my wife and I made a more traditional decision, so, given that I am married to a very bright and capable woman, I am more concerned by the reintroduction of women into the workforce after an absence for child rearing, be that 1 year or 18 years. I asked a few women sitting around me about this and they all placed the onus on the women to explain their absence from the work force and articulate the transferable skills gained from their time at home. I disagree. What is required is for HR departments to value the multi-tasking, agenda setting, rapid trade-off analysis, and appeasement skills that are inherent in raising kids and running a household.

Are we labeling by gender when we should be defining by characteristics?

The question is if there is genuinely a difference between men and women. I think it is best to use an approach that focuses on the characteristics desired rather than to label these characteristics particular to women or men. Having said that, I have always been fascinated by the work of Geert Hofstede on ‘cultural dimensions’ dating from the 1970s, but continue even today. His work has its own detractors and adherents, but what I find interesting is his comparison of different ‘cultural dimensions’ across countries, the dimensions being:

Power distance index (PDI): “Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.” Cultures that endorse low power distance expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic.

Individualism (IDV): “The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups”. In individualistic societies, the stress is put on personal achievements and individual rights. People are expected to stand up for themselves and their immediate family, and to choose their own affiliations. In contrast, in collectivist societies, individuals act predominantly as members of a lifelong and cohesive group or organization (note: “The word collectivism in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state”). People have large extended families, which are used as a protection in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI): “a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity”. It reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance tend to be more emotional. They try to minimize the occurrence of unknown and unusual circumstances and to proceed with careful changes step by step planning and by implementing rules, laws and regulations. In contrast, low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept and feel comfortable in unstructured situations or changeable environments and try to have as few rules as possible. People in these cultures tend to be more pragmatic, they are more tolerant of change.

Masculinity (MAS): “The distribution of emotional roles between the genders”. Masculine cultures’ values are competitiveness, assertiveness, materialism, ambition and power, whereas feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life. In masculine cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in feminine cultures where men and women have the same values emphasizing modesty and caring. As a result of the taboo on sexuality in many cultures, particularly masculine ones, and because of the obvious gender generalizations implied by Hofstede’s terminology, this dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede’s work, e.g. to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life.

Long-term orientation (LTO): First called “Confucian dynamism”, it describes societies’ time horizon. Long term oriented societies attach more importance to the future. They foster pragmatic values oriented towards rewards, including persistence, saving and capacity for adaptation. In short term oriented societies, values promoted are related to the past and the present, including steadiness, respect for tradition, preservation of one’s face, reciprocation and fulfilling social obligations.

Indulgence versus restraint (IVR): The extent to which member in society try to control their desires and impulses. Whereas indulgent societies have a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun, restrained societies have a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict norms.

The Gender Divide in Supply Chain graph1In reality, many of these dimensions are interlinked and, for example, in many cases cultures with a high Masculinity index also have a high Power Distance Index. But the actual values are of little value if not compared to other countries/cultures.

Of course, the most obvious connection to the topic of women in supply chain is the Masculinity dimension, and, by inference, the degree of ‘femininity’ in the culture. As defined by Hofstede, Masculinity is characterized by competitiveness, assertiveness, materialism, ambition and power, which, in my opinion, is at the heart of dysfunction in the supply chain, and precisely not the characteristics described by Christina De Luca as necessary for the modern supply chain.

The Gender Divide in Supply Chain graph2 It bothers me though that Hofstede uses the term Masculine to describe only one dimension.  For example, I would rate Sweden more ‘female’ because by comparison it rates low on Power Distance and Masculinity and high on Pragmatism and Indulgence. Canada is more confusing because it rates high on Individualism, low on Pragmatism, and high on Indulgence.

Eva Wimmers, CPO of Deutsche Telekom, one of the keynote speakers at the SCM World conference used the following diagram to differentiate between female and male leaders. I like the fact that she used quotes around the terms to indicate that these are not gender stereotypes, but rather characteristics of different personality types.

supply chain trevor miles gender blog

 

As you can see, there is a strong similarity between the characteristics Eva Wimmers uses and those promoted by Hofstede, but Eva is closer to my way of thinking that it is the sum of the characteristics that determines the type.

So are quotas the right approach to redress the imbalance of women in the supply chain?

I agree with Christina Da Luca that the approach to quotas needs to be different. On the other hand, there needs to be a goal, an objective against which we can measure success. Whether we call these goals quotas is a matter of semantics.

But quotas without a change in approach is unlikely to yield substantial and sustained improvements. And it is incumbent on us men to be active in this change of approach.  This was a key point Kevin emphasized on a number of occasions during the conference.

 

Posted in Miscellanea


Revolutionize Your Supply Chain for $2.99

Published February 4th, 2014 by Bill DuBois 0 Comments

I’m fortunate to work with a group whose primarily objective is to learn about your business, in particular about your supply chain. As a group we’ve conducted discovery sessions for literally hundreds of companies. In many cases the discovery sessions ultimately lead to supply chain improvements that resulted in millions of dollars’ worth of value, new business, excited customers, reduced costs and even promotions among the supply chain group.

These discovery sessions can be challenging. Many times it feels like a war as there are barrages of questions launched at the participants. Much like a doctor you have to ensure you’re asking the right questions and hope your audience can articulate their complex problems in a manner that you can digest them. It may or may not include all stakeholders. Multiple sessions sometimes have to happen to ensure all inputs are gathered. The struggle then becomes making sense of the pages of notes and then confirming that you’ve got it right. Often when confirming you’re findings you’ve missed something in the translation so getting it right can often take some time. Recently a colleague of mine, Carol, took a different approach to discovery. Let’s call it the “Post-It Note Revolution”. Calling it “Value Stream Mapping” was already taken.

Before I continue, many Lean-Six Sigma practitioners will say this is nothing new and I’ll be the first to agree. The Lean folks have been doing this for years. Unfortunately, at least in Supply Chain, what we’ve observed in the hundreds of discovery sessions we’ve conducted is that lean tools for process improvement aren’t as widely used as one would hope or expect. So for approximately $2.99, the price of a package of post it notes, Carol lead a collaborative session involving all stakeholders where they were able to easily map out the current state of key supply chain processes. A highlight was the visual of the finished “post-it note” process which leant itself to consensus on the current state. Process owners used the post-it notes to document each step along with identifying obvious opportunities for improvement. Every single person in the room had their say and an opportunity to provide input. Carol used some specific “lean brainstorming” techniques to ensure that happened. The visual representation made it easier for the owners to map the processes and much easier for Carol to learn about their business and understand where to take them in the next steps of improving their supply chain.

Identifying the problem in a clear, concise method is half the battle. For $2.99 this company is on its way to making a substantial difference in their supply chain. I’m sure the Lean folks reading this are rolling their eyes at us in Supply Chain but better late than never. There are tons of great Lean improvement tools to identifying and reducing waste, typically associated with manufacturing but other groups including Supply Chain should not forget about them. Just imagine adding millions of dollars’ worth of value to your Supply Chain for only $2.99.

Do you have any improvements you’ve made in your Supply Chain using Lean tools and methods? Would you like to experience the “Post-It Note Revolution”? Let us know.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Miscellanea


A response to ‘Is Your Supply Chain Glass Half Full?’

Published November 13th, 2013 by Janice Kakazu 0 Comments

I just recently saw Bill DuBois’ blog post ‘Is Your Supply Chain Glass Half Full?’  It tickled my fancy and a few additional one-liners came to mind:

  • Project manager – I know you want to add cranberry juice to your martini glass, but I’ll need to write a change request for that.
  • Potential customer – I’ll order that drink if I can talk to 3 other customers who’ll tell me how good it is.
  • Supply chain consultant– Tell me about your requirements for filling that glass, and I’ll transform your glass-filling process!
  • Research analysts/Thought leaders – You’re at stage 4 of the maturity curve when you can segment all the glasses by fullness (or emptiness), sense how full each glass is with your eyes closed, and collaborate with the bartender to get a refill in real-time.

Hope you enjoyed that!

Do you have any other supply chain, “is the glass half full” one liners?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Control tower, Demand management, General News, Inventory management, Response Management, Sales and operations planning (S&OP), Supply chain collaboration


Jake Barr: The evolution of CPG companies and their supply chains

Published August 23rd, 2013 by Melissa Clow 1 Comment

Recently, we had the privilege of recording three interviews with Jake Barr. In our first video, The evolution of CPG companies and their supply chains, Jake discusses industry dynamics and how supply chains (and the respective technologies to support the supply chain) have changed over the past 10 years. He describes it as “the perfect storm”.  As a result, the need for speed and depth of decision making has dramatically increased.  There has been a drastic time compression in having to react to the marketplace, and that requires a different technology architecture.

In Part 1: An executive’s perspective: The evolution of CPG companies and their supply chains, Jake Barr explores the following questions:

  • How have consumer packaged goods companies changed in the last ten years?
  • How has supply chain management changed for consumer packaged goods companies?
  • How has supply chain management technology changed for consumer packaged goods companies?

Jake, a 32-year employee of the Procter & Gamble Company, directed the Global Supply Network Design efforts for the Company, in addition to being the discipline Director for Supply Network Operations. So, as a former practitioner, he has a lot of insight to share.

… please check it out!

 

Notable quotes:

“The speed of which they need to make business decisions today versus ten years ago is dramatically different. It can be measured in a clock speed of minutes and hours versus days and weeks. You no longer have the luxury of buffering with cash and people. Extra people to make decisions or to catch up for mistakes that you make. So the thing that has dramatically changed is in that time compression of the need to react to what’s going on in the marketplace. So if you are not able to make those business decisions faster, you literally become a victim of a circumstance.”

“Today the ability to lay over decision-making processes that aren’t infrastructure based, that can bring pieces of operational data about your current performance, right now, just in time and make it visible in a very tangible and simple way for executives to make not only decisions about today but pre-emptive decisions about where they want to the operation to run tomorrow and the week after that. That would not have been possible ten years. It is radically possible today.”

 

Happy Friday 21st Century Supply Chain readers!

 

p.s. stay tuned for more in this series…

Part 2: Supply chain transformations: Going after game changing change

Part 3: Insights for today’s business leaders

Enhanced by Zemanta

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