In our last post, we discussed the conclusions drawn by AMR in their survey of 198 organizations to assess the state of the supply chain management discipline, identify key requirements to support a demand-driven curriculum, and construct the first functional talent attribute model (which can be downloaded from the Supply Chain Council). Today we’re going to discuss their new talent “model”.
“Model” is in quotes because I don’t know if “model” is the name for an intersection of seven (7) “functional” talent stations across four (4) “enabler” talent stations supported by three intersecting “networks”. Myself, I’d be tempted to go with “mess”. Take a look for yourself (and select the thumbnail to enlarge).
Now, I’m sure you’re saying “this doesn’t look too bad”, and it doesn’t, until you dive into the sub-attributes, as compiled from respondents. Then you get:
Function | Sub-Attributes |
NPDL |
|
Plan |
|
Source |
|
Make |
|
Deliver |
|
Customer Management |
|
… and you wonder what happened to Post Sales Support, but you also get:
Enabler | Sub-Attributes |
Governance |
|
Strategy & Change Management |
|
Performance Measurement & Analytics |
|
Technology Enablement |
|
And although all of this (and much more) is necessary, I think a layered model, that separates supply chain functions from supply chain technology, and that allows users to dive in on different areas of expertise, is needed – because not everyone needs to acquire such a broad understanding (and this is important because not everyone will be able to). Maybe something similar to what The Logistics Institute, which breaks the state of affairs down into a strategic view and process flow, is proposing.
Although it’s arguable as to which model is more complete, the model from The Logistics Institute is easier to understand, and right now, I think that’s key.