Monthly Archives: December 2009

How Do I Know That My Adviser Isn’t Another Bernie Madoff?

This article, from the October 12, 2009 print edition of Canadian Business (and Yahoo Finance), got my attention. After all, I’m a well educated Ph.D. who can build some of the most complex mathematical and computer models in the world, and I often don’t have a clue what these people are trying to, or should I say not to, tell me. (And that’s why I don’t have a personal financial advisor who oversees my financial decisions and plan to keep it that way.)

And we have essentially the same problem as supply management professionals every time a new sales person comes knocking on our door. Is he selling us a better product, or is he selling a fresh batch of snake oil? And how do we tell the difference?

The article reiterated a great piece of timeless advice that we all need to remember, “if it’s too good to be true, it probably is“. That’s not to say that there aren’t categories where you can save 50% or more off of what you’re paying now, as there are, but that they’ll likely only represent a small fraction of the “opportunities” that sales people will try to bring to. By the time you factor in switching costs, logistics costs, quality trade-offs, etc., the real opportunity will in fact be a lot smaller than the sales person may make it out to be.

So do your research, and just like you should start with a security commission check and Google search before you meet with a financial advisor, you should check with the supplier’s local Better Business Bureau (or equivalent) and do a Google search before you get too far down the negotiating path. It’s better safe than sorry, especially in this economy.

Share This on Linked In

Top 11 Projections from the Transportation & Logistics 2030 Report

PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the Supply Chain Management Institute recently released Volume 1 of their Transportation & Logistics 2030 report on how supply chains will evolve in an energy-constrained, low-carbon world. The first issue focussed on the scarcity of energy resources and how it will likely affect the industry over the next 20 years and contained a number of theses that were assigned an average probability of likelihood by 48 experts under a Delphi study. Of the 18 theses addressed in the report, the following 11 were assigned a greater than 50% chance of occurrence, with the first thesis given a 71% chance of likelihood.

  • Continuous real-time control of the flow of goods eliminates disturbances in the supply chain and thereby significantly increases resource efficiency.
    Technology will never eliminate disturbances as some risks can’t be predicted, but given that the real time visibility solutions already available can greatly reduce supply chain fluctuations, I have to agree that most supply chains will flow smoother in 20 years (especially since those that don’t improve will perish in the current economic climate).
  • By using standardised measurement and evaluation systems (i.e. emissions trading, toll systems), the carbon footprint of logistics processes in supply chains will be allocated to the causer and factored into the price of the product.
    Governments are slow to move, but the pressure is on. This could happen in the next decade.
  • Consumer behaviour has changed such that locally produced products are strongly preferred.
    Consumer behaviour is already changing to environmentally preferred products … and as consumers better understand the unnecessary environmental damage caused by shipping products halfway around the world that can be produced down the street, this is inevitable.
  • Larger means of transport (gigaliner trucks, ultra-large container ships) have become prevalent in order to compensate for rising transportation costs.
    We already have 15.2K TEU container ships that are almost 400 meters long, and I don’t see this record standing for long.
  • The reduction of transportation costs has become the predominant criterion in determining where to set up production sites.
    As the cost of fuel continues to rise, this is inevitable.
  • Work environments, everyday activities, and leisure options are better integrated, which has led to considerable reductions in transport.
    We’re seeing the start of this revolution today with the rise of the networked person who can work anywhere.
  • Autonomous and self-controlled systems (agent systems, automatic guided vehicles) have revolutionized freight transport.
    While I think revolutionized is a strong word here, warehouse operations will become a lot more automated and a lot more streamlined.
  • Nanotechnology has significantly improved many means and procedures in logistics (e.g. transport, maintenance, repair and overhaul).
    This is one I have to disagree with. Until we see some real breakthroughs in the industrial application of nanotechnology, it’s going to be a while before we see a transition from the lab to logistics.
  • Personal influence on the logistics process has become more important for customers than the speed of delivery. Customers actively intervene in controlling the delivery process of goods.
    We’re already seeing the beginnings of this. If a customer can get the goods when they’re needed, how long they take to get there is not as much of an issue.
  • The minimization of energy consumption is the paramount criterion in supply chain design, rather than cost efficiency and speed.
    Since energy costs are going to rise as sustainability and corporate social responsibility continues to grab headlines, the focus will shift to minimizing energy. Furthermore, reduced energy consumption will reduce in decreased costs, so a focus on cost reduction won’t be as important.
  • The global energy turnaround has now advanced to the point so that in some countries alternative energy accounts for up to 80% of the overall energy mix.
    While this will be the case in a few emerging markets, I am going to make the sad prediction that most of the countries in today’s developed world will still be struggling to surpass the 30% to 40% marks.

Share This on Linked In

Energy Utilization Is a Problem … But Water Consumption is a Bigger One!

The November 9th print edition of Canadian Business had an Opinion piece by Stewart Hall, titled “The Age of ‘Water Wealth’ Has Arrived in Canada”, that quoted a very scary statistic from the Water Footprint Network. The virtual water footprint of a full breakfast including juice, newspaper, milk, coffee, toast, two eggs and bacon weights in at a hefty 2,800 litres!

While one’s virtual water foot print is largely related to choice of diet, even a survival diet alone leaves a footprint of 1,000 litres per day. A vegetarian diet needs 2,600 litres and a high protein North American style meat-based diet runs the meter up to 5,000 litres of water per day. On top of this, we North Americans use twice as much water a day for our personal needs than our European counterparts, using 400 litres per day out of the tap to their 200, while a person in the developing world will use just 10 litres (and we each need 3 litres of water a day just to survive).

This isn’t a problem since the 71.1% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, right? Wrong! Only about 3% of the water on the planet is safe to drink, and two thirds of that is locked up in glaciers and unavailable for consumption. That leaves a mere 1% of potable water for over 6.8 Billion people to share. And with the UN estimating that ground water is already being used at a rate of 4% beyond it’s replenishment rate, that tells us that even those of us who are water rich are going to be in trouble within 25 years while those of us who are water poor (like China, India, and Pakistan who are currently pumping out twice as much water out of the ground as rain is replenishing) could be in dire straits within 5 years.

We need to reduce our consumption and do it fast, because, unlike the energy shortage which could be easily fixed with a sufficient investment (which, unfortunately, is still much more than anyone wants to spend as almost all of the investment has to be made up front), there are no limitless sources of renewable “clean water” to match the almost limitless solar, wind, and hydro potential that we can tap into.

So if you really want to be a forward-thinking socially-responsible supply manager, make sure you select sources of supply and production processes with minimal water utilization. You’ll save big-time in the long run.

Share This on Linked In

Smart Cars Are Here, But Where Are Our Smart Grids To Charge Them?

The November 9th print edition of Canadian Business had an article by Heather Li on “Charging Cars for Pennies …” that had an amazing calculation that, if it were more widely known, could totally change the way we look at smart cars. By using wasted power, smart grids can charge electric cars for 42 cents a night!

Let’s see … in a fuel efficient car with gas prices at about $3 a gallon in the US and over $4 a gallon in Canada, you’re paying at least $30 in the US and at least $40 in Canada for a tank of gas that will get you the same 400km to 500km of travel that an electric car with a high-performance lithium-ion battery pack will get you … which could cost you a mere $0.42 to recharge. Now, it’s true that the batteries will eventually need to be replaced … but as the new battery packs have an estimated life of about 250,000 km, you might replace the smart car first!

How could we do it so cheap? It has to do with the fact that while our power demands fluctuate throughout a 24 hour cycle, power production does not. Water doesn’t stop flowing, nuclear reactions don’t stop half way through the chain, and it’s just not practical to shut down coal plants. As a result, much of the energy produced at night goes to waste. In Ontario, the difference between how much is used and how much is produced in off-peak night hours is often 10,000 mega-watts — which is potentially enough power to support one million electric vehicles! And, as you guessed, the power companies lose money on this production (which they make up for by charging a rate for energy consumption that covers the average total cost of production over a 24 hour period, and not just the cost of the energy you use). But if we had a smart grid, that utilized new smart meters, it could be programmed to charge our smart cars during times of peak excess energy availability and the power companies could charge us a fraction of a penny per kWh (or just a few dollars per MWh, instead of the average consumer price of $27.59 per MWh in Canada in November) and still make a profit.

Bring on the Smart Grids!

Share This on Linked In