Monthly Archives: November 2012

The Real Reason We’re Losing Manufacturing Jobs (in North America)?

Because the Chinese are taking them? No.

Because we’re not subsidizing them? No.

Because, as pointed out by Mitch Free of MFG.com in a great article in Forbes this summer, we’re not exporting.

Instead of using North American know-how to build great products and sell them to other countries and optimizing the value generation chain, we’re optimizing the cost saving supply chain to instead import great products from other countries. Now, in some cases it makes sense when these products can be produced cheaper and in greater quantities than they can be produced in the US, especially when those products are going to be sold around the world, but I’m still not sure it makes sense in all cases. Especially for custom made products or high-end manufacturing or medical devices which are high value and require very high-end expertise that we possess a lot of in this country.

And while some North American companies have figured this out, and are doing a great job of selling product abroad (like Apple and Caterpillar), they are few and far between and all large companies. As Mitch says, the key to (North) American Manufacturing success is for small and mid-size manufacturers to get into the exporting game and sell their products outside of North America. There are less than 460 Million people in North America. That’s less than 6.6% of global population. And with large middle classes emerging in China and India, where 2.585 Million people live, North America is quickly becoming a (very) small portion of the global market for whatever product you are making.

So why aren’t we exporting? Because, as Mitch says, we have been spoiled by our home business market of more than 300 million people who speak the same language, largely embrace the same culture, abide by the same laws, use the same currency and have freedom of movement and disposable income. In the past, our market has been so robust that you did not need to sell abroad in order to have a great business and live a comfortable lifestyle. But this isn’t the case anymore. Now, we have a lot of work and learning to do in order to catch up with our global competitors whose small- and medium-sized businesses are already skilled exporters. They understand and appreciate different cultures, speak multiple languages and are good at adapting to the markets they are selling in. Because, for the most part, they had no choice. For example, Germany only has 81 Million people. It couldn’t build great, now globally recognized, brands if it just tried to build for it’s home market. And the UK and France only have 62 Million and 65 Million respectively.

We’re losing jobs because we aren’t exporting. But there’s no reason we shouldn’t be. We are among the most productive and technologically advanced countries in the world. We can compete with anyone; we just need to learn to export. And it shouldn’t be hard. We’re already masters at importing with some of the most advanced supply chains in the world. We just have to point them the in the other direction now and then.

The Real Problem With Most of Today’s Supply Chains?

They’re too fast and too slow.

And no, this is not an oxymoron.

As highlighted in this recent post on Supply Chain Digital, the product life cycle is in decline now that 50% of annual company revenues across a range of industries are derived from new products launched within the past three years at the same time that there are 250 supply chain disruptions to public company supply chains every month (Source) that result in shareholder value dropping by 10.28% on average (Source) and that takes the company an average of 50 trading days to recover from.

They’re too fast. There are too many products being introduced too fast. For example, how often do you need a new phone anyway? It’s a damn phone. And a dress shirt is a dress shirt. Now, it’s true that you need to constantly improve computing technology (to keep up with the bloatware), but do you need to change the form factor every year? Sure you need to increase the memory, the processing power, and the storage, but there’s no reason the form factors can’t stay the same — especially since density keeps increasing.

They’re too slow. The average company can’t respond to supply chain disruptions or market shifts fast enough to prevent significant stock-outs, significant drops in revenue, or reputational damages that take it, on average, two months to recover from.

Companies need to balance the competing agendas of innovation, renovation, and reverberation. While constant product innovation is needed, the innovation needs to enhance the product lines and not destroy them. Since research is expensive, the gains from each effort need to be maximized. That means reusing designs, components, and innovations to the extent possible for more than just a year or two.

Furthermore, some things just can’t be reinvented. A toaster is a toaster is a toaster. A new design every year isn’t going to drastically increase revenues and is, to be blunt, a waste of time.

Unnecessary efforts need to be eliminated and redirect to risk management. There’s not enough focus on risk or the mitigation thereof. For example, the benefits of an innovation efforts can be eliminated by the failure of a strategic supplier and the expected profits from a new a product launch can disappear if a supply disruption translates into stock-outs across the board in peak seasons.

In other words, your supply chain needs to slow down and speed up.

I’m Not Sure That I Buy That This Increases Sustainability

According to this recent blog post over on Core 77, Walmart (Canada)’s New Supercube Increases Sustainability by Designing Bigger Trucks. Working with an Ontario-based Company called Innovative Trailer Design, they have commissioned the Walmart Supercube that can hold 30% more cargo in the same footprint. By designing a truck with a squashed cab, they can increase the trailer length from 53 feet to 60 feet without increasing the overall vehicle length. Plus, they are lowering the floor of the trailer and installing a built-in scissor lift to help load the cargo into the far reaches. And they’ve even added a dromedory box that holds an additional 10% of cargo behind the cab that can be independently loaded and unloaded.

Now, technically, if there is no significant difference in fuel usage, then the trucks will be a more sustainable way to move cargo since you will now only require 3 trucks to move what used to take 4 trucks, but if the total number of trucks on the roads do not decrease, then there is no significant advantage.

Plus, more cargo = more consumption, and that’s never an argument for sustainability.

It’s a great concept, and a cool design, but I’m not sure I buy that it’s going to improve sustainability.

Some Good Advice from Hackett on Building a Better Procurement Scorecard

Supply Management is about more than cost. Much more. But it’s hard to make the point if all that you’re measured on are (soon to be very elusive) cost savings. So you need to be measured on a scorecard, preferably one that’s balanced. But what should it contain? A recent Supply Chain Brain article indicated it should focus on service. CPO Rising indicates that you should focus on categories. And SourceOne authors Bill & Joe say to focus on the balanced scorecard.

Hackett indicates that the following considerations are important

  • innovation
  • supply assurance / supply risk
  • regulatory compliance
  • working capital
  • P2P process efficiency
  • supplier diversity

and I would agree that they are all relevant to Supply Management, but what I really like is their 10 key considerations to keep in mind when developing your next scorecard that should help ensure a more holistic level of success that starts off:

  1. Align with the Business
    While most organizations have still failed to realize this fact, Supply Management is the business. Now that companies no longer make what they sell, supply management now serves the most critical function – as there is no product without it. So its critical that supply management closely align with the business and provide the business what it needs.
  2. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)

    When creating a scorecard, its critical to consolidate to a manageable set of metrics. Otherwise, the complexity becomes overwhelming and the utility of the tool becomes increasingly diminished . While it’s important to include all of the key contributions that supply management makes, the scorecard should only measure the key contributions that provide the organization the most value. Your organization might do 101 things, but probably only needs to report on the top 11 or 21.
  3. Compare Externally
    While not all measures need to be externally benchmarked, the organization does need to understand what the measures mean.

Check out this article on My Purchasing Center for their other seven key considerations for developing a scorecard that will help your Supply Management organization achieve a holistic level of success.