I was fascinated watching the key note address from Chris Hadfield at the Kinaxis user conference, Kinexions 2017. Canadians and space junkies will know him as the first Canadian to walk in space and as a commander of the International Space Station.
But, it was not all his accomplishments that made everyone else in the room feel inadequate. It was his level of preparation. As Hadfield said, “Astronauts are not adrenalin junkies. Adrenalin is an indication of lack of preparation and can have fatal results.” Rather, astronauts train for what they must do. They train to handle all the things that might go wrong and for making decisions with incomplete information.
During the presentation, especially on hearing about having to act despite incomplete information, I thought more about the role of supply chain planners. What I see is planners spending all their time chasing the latest shortage rather than efficiently planning their supply chain.
Following the theme of Hadfield’s presentation, wouldn’t it make more sense for planners to plan?
For example, rather than scrambling to find another 100 units, think of how much more effectively planners could use their time by creating a game plan for an increase in demand or changes in the sales mix.
Or, plan for what might happen if, let’s say, Puerto Rico endured a severe hurricane, or if Houston was flooded, or if a tsunami hit the Philippines, or if earthquakes occurred in Mexico. All of which happened.
Whose supply chains recover most quickly from unpredictable events? The answer is simple. It’s the supply chain with a plan that’s ready to execute should disaster happen.
So, the looming question is this… does your supply chain have ready-to-execute plans in place for changes in demand due to natural, or even political disasters?
Which brings us back to Chris Hadfield and an astronaut’s level of preparation.
Wouldn’t it be better for supply chain planners to spend their time setting planning parameters rather than chasing shortages? Wouldn’t it be better for automated processes to handle routine operations and even some frequent exceptions so that planners could deal with the real exceptions? Wouldn’t it be better for planners to develop game plans for foreseeable events? And, wouldn’t it be better for planners to simulate their plans to be sure they would actually provide a recovery should the event happen?
How would you rather have your planners spend their time?