Monthly Archives: June 2011

Don’t Overlook the Soft Cost Savings from SOW Management

A recent article in the SIG Newsletter on the “best practices for managing and analyzing statement of work spend” that described the rapidly maturing market for centralized SOW (Statement of Work) management programs and the usefulness of a modern VMS (Vendor Management System) also described the one-time and continous benefits of managed SOW programs (under the guidance of a PMO – Program Management Office) and the hard and soft cost savings that resulted. While many organizations move to managed SOW programs, often through a MSP (Managed Services Provider), in pursuit of the hard dollar cost savings, that are often in the 10% to 15% range when done properly, the long term soft cost savings will often be more valuable.

In particular, the following benefits are invaluable to an average organization:

  • single point of contact for contingent labor needs
    no need to contact, and manage, multiple providers to fill different labor needs
  • reduced cycle times
    one call and the PMO or MSP uses a process already in place to locate and onboard your contingent labor
  • standardized criteria
    every department uses the same definition, and the company pays one rate for one type of resource
  • increased visibility
    one report shows the total spend on contingent / managed labour by type, department, provider, etc.
  • compliance firewall for classification, tax, and labor law issues
    which significantly decreases the risk of a massive fine when the same contingent workers are repeatedly rehired (and the government decides they are now employees and you owe more taxes and benefits)
  • standardized performance metrics
    and managed suppliers who know what is expected of them
  • better labor needs forecasting
    from complete and accurate contingent workforce data
  • payment management
    no interest from late payments, no overpayments, and, most importantly, no double payments

All of these benefits reduce complexity, increase reliability, and reduce risk — which keeps costs down in the long run as complexity, risk, and uncertainty only serve to drive up cost.

Is Your CPO the Next CEO Candidate?

Supply and Demand Chain Executive recently ran an interesting article on “forging a dynamic, enduring and energetic supply chain: developing supply chain-rooted CEOs” that outlined 5 attributes of great CEOs, 10 questions to ask about the organization, 10 reasons to invest in internal leadership talent, and 10 areas to develop great leadership skills.

According to the authors, the following 10 areas are key developmental areas for leadership and, thus, critical for the CPO to master if she is to become the company’s next CEO.

  1. Business Acumen
    The CPO must understand the fundamentals of how money is made within the company and industry, the needs and wants of cusotmers and stakeholders, and the competitive and market dynamics that drive change and opportunity.
  2. Work Ethic
    The CPO must put the time in to prepare herself for the next step and stand out.
  3. Networking Skills
    The CPO must build a network of supporters and influencers, give more than she gets, stay connected, and build internal and external advocacy.
  4. Results Oriented
    The CPO must earn her stripes by consistently delivering results that drive the respect and recognition of others.
  5. Permeability
    The CPO must have the ability to collect and synthesize multi-directional data across critical domains and be willing to constantly share knowledge.
  6. People Skills
    The CPO must be able to get the most out of people.
  7. Decision Making
    The CPO must be cool under fire and be able to make critical and controversial decisions when required.
  8. Lateral Development
    The CPO must be open to lateral moves which are stepping stones on the path to the CEO spot, such as CFO or COO.
  9. Continuous Learning
    The CPO must be willing to learn continuously and demonstrate such willingness.
  10. Legacy Building
    The CPO must have built a Supply Management organization that is capable of standing on its own and shining if the CPO moves on.

SI has to agree. A CPO will need to have all of these skills and qualities to take on the CEO role. But is it enough to get her the job? As Bob continually points out, a CPO must speak the language of the CFO. It’s more than just business acumen, it’s talking like you belong in the role. And while work ethic is highly regarded, it’s results that count. If the CPO is constantly putting in 80 hour weeks but not meeting her goals, she will look ill-fit, or slow. And while Networking and People skills are well regarded, the decision ultimately comes down to a small board of directors — if they do not think she’s the right candidate, it doesn’t matter how much internal support she has. And while permeability is admired, it’s seen as tactical as the organization can always hire an analyst to synthesize the data. It’s the ability to make good decisions based on the data and information available that is admired most. And it’s not always the legacy the CPO has built, but the legacy the board thinks the CPO could build as a CEO that ultimately influences the final decisions.

It’s a tough call to say which skill set is the right skill set and what is required to get the CPO into the top spot. Are there any other viewpoints out there that could shed some more light on the subject?

The Best Way to Handle Decentralized / Local Supply Management Groups

While a well designed Sourcing / Procurement / Supply Management organization will have as many functions center-led, if not centralized, as possible, in a large multi-national, some groups will have to be regional to be effective and some purchases will have to be local. For example, fashion purchases will have to be driven regionally by someone with a pulse on the market and it does not make sense to ask the central asset management organization in (southern) India to manage snow removal operations in (northern) Canada (unless someone wants to see some really strange looks).

But how does your hybrid center-led Supply Management organization effectively manage these decentralized / local groups for best results? A great post on how when managing complexity, “less is more” over on the HBR blogs had a great suggestion — restrict activies at the group level to a core set of five that enable and enhance business performance. Specifically, focus on:

  1. Portfolio Management
    which activities fall under Supply Management purview
  2. Performance Management
    what are the cost / quality / value goals for each unit and how will the center-led Supply Management organization help the units achieve the goals
  3. Capital Allocation
    what investments can be made in each unit (in terms of technology, process, and people) to deliver the greatest returns
  4. Talent Management
    are the best people working the right jobs
  5. Synergy Capture
    to identify new or large opportunities that should be pulled up into the center-led Supply Management organization

It’s all about the selection of the handful of critical leverage points that will have the biggest impact on success and [a] relentless focus on doing them better. The purchase was pushed out to a local group because it wasn’t of a high enough value to manage centrally or because the central organization did not have the (local) knowledge required to make the best decision, so it needs to focus on the leverage points that will help the local organization, not on the task itself.

Cross-Docking Challenges, Part II

Part I noted how cross-dociking can be a great way to cut transportation costs if done right, because handling of goods while in transit, adds labor and time, which in turn costs the organization hard dollars and profit, but also noted that cross-docking is not without its challenges. It then went on to define eight of the biggest cross-docking challenges faced by an average organization.

This post is going to address what an organization can do to address each of the challenges and see the ROI from cross-docking that it expects to achieve.

Unpredictable Customer Demand
There are two things an organization can do to address unpredictable customer demand. It can restrict cross-docking to primary distribution centers, or it can invest in reusable multi-level packaging. In the first case, when a container hits a primary port or DC, it will use cross-docking to divert the inbound product to the regional DCs, but will not use cross-docking to divert the goods from the regional DCs to the stores. In the second case, it will package small goods in smaller bundles, and if the boxes are too small to allow for efficient handling, it will place those boxes in larger, recyclable boxes or reusable containers and then, depending on demand updates, break the boxes or containers down to ship the revised quantities to the end locations.

IT System Support
This is easy — the organization invests in a new TMS (Transportation Management System) or WMS (Warehouse Management System) that is designed to support the organization’s cross-docking needs. Such a system will also likely come with advanced analytics, modelling, simulation, and/or optimization capabilities that will help the organization identify additional opportunities for cost saving.

Changing Business Dynamics
Cross-docking has to be part of the network (re)design, and not just an ad-hoc afterthought, and the contracts have to be written with the same flexibility as the shipping, distribution, and (temporary) warehousing contracts. This way it is no more risky than the other supply network activities and no less ill-fitted than the rest of the network should dynamics change.

Supplier Reliability
The organization has to build appropriate performance metrics into its sourcing contracts and establish appropriate SRM/SPM/SD (Supplier Relationship Management / Supplier Performance Management / Supplier Development) programs to insure that suppliers have, or build, a track record of on-time delivery.

Carrier Reliability
The organization has to build appropriate performance metrics, penalties, and out clauses, into its logistics contracts and establish appropriate monitoring policies and procedures to make sure its carriers deliver on time.

Facility Design
The organization has to select facilities appropriate to its crossdocking needs or invest in the necessary leasehold improvements to insure its cross-docking operations run smoothly.

Shelf Life
The organization has to adopt a FGIFGO (First-Group In, First-Group Out) policy and allow for newer products, with about the same shelf-life, to be sent out if currently cross-docked. If the product on the shelf has 27 days life, and product in the truck has 30 days left, there’s not much difference and it should send the product currently on the truck out if it can cross-dock. However, if product on the shelf has 14 days and product on the truck has 28 days, then, unless it can guarantee the product on the shelf will go out in the next 24 hours, it has to send out the product on the shelf. For each product, it has to define “close-enough” time-bands, and accept substitutions within the same time-band that are “close-enough”. (Unless, of course, there is product on the shelf about to expire, in which case it can define an override.)

ROI
The organization implements the right group of policies and procedures that will minimize touch and maximize ROI.

In other words, while cross-docking presents challenges on the road to success and cost savings, each challenge can be overcome and an organization that perseveres will see significant cost reductions in its logistics and transportation spend.

Is Your Supply Management Organization About to Move to Asia?

As per this recent article over on the McKinsey Quarterly on “Translating Innovation into US Growth: An Advanced-Industries Perspective”, the US is posed for a future in which the elements of economic leadership are moving abroad. The US might still be the global leader in R&D spending overall, but in order to maintain its competitive edge, it has to be able to devise innovations the world wants and needs and translate those into economic leadership.

Economic leadership requires more than a capital market system that encourages (and rewards) risk taking and entrepreneurship, more than simply attracting top students and teachers globally, and more than bulk spending. As per the article, it also requires cutting-edge technology, demand, talent, and entrepreneurial spirit. And, right now, the US is falling behind on each of these.

Cutting-Edge Technology
In leading industrial technologies — such as advanced batteries, high-speed rail, hybrid automobiles, solar modules, offshore wind turbines, and machine tools — the United States finds itself competing against, or even catching up, with foreign companies and engineers. Furthermore, as the article notes, the US is now relying on Japan, Russian, and Western Europe to launch its satellites — an industry it used to pretty much own globally. If the US can’t even compete in green energy, it’s in for trouble.

Demand
More than 50% of the global middle class now lives outside North America and the demand for many next-generation products is now coming from Asia, Latin Ameria, and the Middle East. These customers are creating new markets and dictating preferences. US products for the US market are no longer profitable on their own in many industries.

Talent
Scientific and engineering talent is now building up outside the US while one-third of US manufacturing companies are suffering from skills shortages. Cutting edge research is moving to India and China as well as accelerating in Japan and Germany.

Entrepreneurial Spirit
Once a mainstay of the private sector, risk aversion to new vetures is increasing across the board in the US. At the same time, the “new” India is becoming much more entrepreneurial and risk taking. It’s not a good combination.

Then, when you also consider:

Cost
Many emerging countries have labour and overall operating costs that are still only a third of labour and operational costs in North America or Europe.

Success
A number of global multinationals, including IBM, have proved that you can move global Financial, Services, and Supply Management organizations to China and India and still be a world-class organization.

it becomes impossible not to ask if your supply management organization is about to move to Asia.