Monthly Archives: October 2011

Is It Time To Move Your (Supply Chain) Operations to an Emerging Economy?

After reading this recent piece in Chief Executive (CE) on how US companies are “garotted by red tape”, SI is wondering whether the time has come to follow the lead of IBM and other big multi-nationals and move your supply chain, followed by your headquarters, to China or another emerging economy. Even though I still think North America is going to retain the edge in High-Tech Innovation for a few more years (despite the fact that the numbers say that both India and China should be producing four times as many geniuses each year), the cost of doing business, or at least of keeping your supply chain and headquarters, in the US is becoming too high.

Consider these vary scary stats from the CE article:

  • In 2010, the Feds spent 55.4 Billion enforcing regulations
  • In 2009, economists Crain and Crain estimated the true cost of the Feds’ regulations was 1.75 Trillion – or 12% of GDP – compared to only 1.46 Trillion in pre-tax profits businesses earned
  • The Federal Register that compiles regulations is over 81,405 pages long
  • Since Obama took office, regulators have imposed 38 Billion in new costs
  • There are 2,785 proposed rules in the pipeline and 144 are economically significant and will add burdens of over $100 Million each for a collective burden of over $14 Billion on this 5%!

At the moment, federal regulations are a runaway train that no one can stop. And until the US gets a Denzel Washington or a Keanu Reeves that can deal with the situation, it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

As a result, it might be time to consider moving your supply chain operations somewhere where the regulations are a little less severe … even if you have to pay a few government bribes or deal with a few pirates. After all, 238 Million (which is the amount paid to pirates in 2010 for ransom) is a lot less than 1.75 Trillion (at 0.01%), and a few hundred thousand goes quite a long way in developing economies where bribes are concerned. And while SI is not condoning bribery or pirate ransoms, there are much better uses from an innovation and jobs standpoint for 1.75 Trillion dollars than red tape.

Maybe if a few big companies start leaving and the feds realize that if they don’t stop the runaway train that the city will be empty by the time it arrives they’ll bring in a Denzel or Keanu to deal with it. SI doesn’t know, but thinks it’s a good question to ask.

High Tech Needs Next Generation Supply Management

As chronicled in this recent commentary by Bob Ferrari over on Supply Chain Matters, not only do accelerating dynamics reshaping high tech supply chain networks bring implications, but there is continuing turbulence among and across high tech and consumer electronics value-chains. This means that now more than ever, firms in these segments need to continually re-visit their strategic sourcing and supply plans for long-term implications and, in SI’s view, they need to start by adopting next level supply management strategies when they revisit their plans.

And, as Bob suggests, it is imperative that senior management is continually educated to developments and that strategic strategy sessions and interchange be more than just a periodic occurrence. As clearly indicated in this morning’s post, Next Level Supply Management requires Collaboration, Stakeholder Partnership, Leadership, Early Involvement, and Alignment. Not only does Supply Management need to speak as one voice, but the entire company needs to speak as one voice in this sector. The storm is too violent to ride out if everyone is rowing in different directions.

Knowledge Based Sourcing V – The Verdict

This week examined Knowledge Based Sourcing, Booz Allen’s entrant into the Next Level Arena. Described as a competency consisting of a set of powerful techniques used to identify high impact value drivers that result in increased understanding and knowledge of ‘ideal’ cost structures that can be used to develop better relationships with suppliers, focused on reality based improvement plans, and gain an ongoing business advantage, KBS turns out to be a sourcing paradigm largely based on advanced cost modelling and associated analytical techniques.

Since advanced cost modelling is a solid foundation for both strategic sourcing decision optimization and spend analysis, KBS is a good foundation for any sourcing effort, but does it go far enough to truly be a next level supply management paradigm? Let’s look at some of the key tenets of the other entrants into the Arena.

  • High Definition Sourcing (HDS)
    Category Excellence. Adoption. Stakeholder Partnership. Decision Monitoring. BI Focus.
  • Value Focussed Supply (VFS)
    Working Capital Optimization. Revenue Enhancement. Corporate Reputation Protection. Increased Supplier/Customer/Stakeholder Loyalty. Strategic Advantage. Intellectual Capital. Sustainable Value Chain.
  • Next Level Supply Management (NLSM)
    Leadership. Transformation. Corporate Finance Focus. Talent Management. Collaboration. Energy Management. Idealized Design. (Lean) Supplier Development. Complexity Reduction. Working Capital Management. Early Involvement.
  • Next Practices (NP)
    Talent Management. Adoption. Execution. Implementation. Optimization. Utilization. Customer Value Focus. Risk Focus. Mind Share. Information. Alignment.
  • Supply Management Transformation (SMT)
    Innovation.
  • Supply Chain Leverage (SCL)
    Value Creation Framework. Market share. Diversification. Productivity. Tax Effectiveness. Demand Management. Lean.

Hmmm. While most of these start with a foundation of modelling and cost management, that’s as far as the similarity goes. In most of these models, modelling to understand current costs is simply the first step on the path to category excellence, revenue enhancement, working capital optimization, or customer value improvement. It is not an end in and of itself. Furthermore, most of these next generation methodologies start with TVM (Total Value Management), realizing that TCO doesn’t go far enough for most categories — and KBS seems quite content with TCO.

Verdict? While KBS might last a few rounds against SMT, against HDS, VFS, NLSM, NP, and SCL, it wouldn’t last three rounds before getting KO’d. I guess it’s time for Booz Allen to update their model!

Do You Know Your Legal Risk In An Acquisition?

Chief Executive just ran a great article on how to evaluate legal risk in acquisitions that I believe is a must read for any Supply Management department asked to consult on a Merger or Acquisition. Especially since, like the article states, it is nearly impossible to find a company not involved in some sort of litigation. The traditional analysis of the management team, cash flow, and market share is not enough — a risk assessment on pending litigation must also be made.

So how do you assess legal risk? The first thing you do is get an expert advisor, and a litigation manager in particular. Once you have this individual, who is an attorney with a significant business background as well as a litigation background, you work with her to evaluate the:

  • materiality of the litigation, the
  • potential for future suits, and the
  • connection between the litigation and the business plan.

The materiality is important not just from a relevancy perspective (that attempts to define the validity of the claim and the chance of success by the claimant) but from a cost perspective. If the cost of defending the litigation, regardless of expected outcome, will cost the company more than it can afford, the company will be bankrupted. The potential for future suits is also important because if the business model, or technology platform, opens the company up to other potential litigations based on equally (in) valid claims, the company could be bankrupted as it grows (and becomes a target by patent pirates). Finally, it is critically important to understand if the litigation exposes a problem with the core business model. If this is the case, and there is no easy, or at least manageable way, to correct the model, there is not only a great potential for further suits but a great potential for failure and bankruptcy.

However, if a litigation manager properly evaluates the potential for materiality and future litigation, and the connection between the litigation and the business plan, and finds no significant risks, then investors, who can make informed decisions, with a full understanding of the legal risk associated with a potential company, can confidently invest in the acquisition.

Be sure to check out the article on how to evaluate legal risk in acquisitions. It has a lot of great advice and a great case study on how a residential and commercial brokerage firm sized up the risk of an acquisition.