Daily Archives: February 17, 2013

Don’t Forget the Recovery When Designing For Recovery!

In our recent post on how supplier circles are just loopy, we noted that the only difference between what the McKinsey article on Manufacturing Resource Productivity is preaching and what the environmentalists have been preaching for years is that the reduce, reuse, and recycle mantra should pervade the supply chain end to end and influence new business models that improve recovery, create new sources of supply, optimize production, and increase revenues instead of being an afterthought. In essence, as we pointed out, McKinsey is jumping on the Design for Recycle bandwagon that SI and a few other (lonely) thought leaders have been pulling for years (and years and years), but changing the language to make it look like it’s their idea (as all good consultants do — but at least they are not stealing your watch to tell you the time).

Design for Recycle, which is also known as Design for Recovery, is very important as the supply of more and more rare earth minerals become scarcer and scarcer and the most abundant source is in products (going) in (to) the hands of the consumers, who will eventually finish with the product, and without an alternative, toss it in the trash — where it may end up wasted in a landfill! But this isn’t the only reason you want your products back. Even when the initial customer is done with them, most of your products, or at least components thereof, still possess value and can still be refurbished and resold at a profit, even if they are not working. The obvious example is the iPhone 4S still has value when the customer upgrades to the iPhone 5. A less obvious example is that the laptop still has value if only the memory needs to be replaced. If the laptop can be resold for $300 with only $20 for new memory chips and $30 of labour, then recovering it at a cost of $30 of shipping and a trade-in credit of $100 should be a no-brainer as that leaves you with 40% profit — which is probably a heck of a lot more than what you made initially when prices were slashed to be competitive with your most aggressive competitor! And then there’s the fact that many jurisdictions are enacting legislation regarding returns management and proper disposal. If you don’t have a valid recovery mechanism to ensure customers have an option for proper disposal, in some of these jurisdictions, you could be fined if your customer, lacking such an option, decides to throw the product in the trash.

But these aren’t the only reasons to plan for recovery. As pointed out in a recent article on reclaiming value through reverse logistics, a retailer’s returns policy is a critical decision making factor in a customer’s purchase. Specifically, 63% of online shoppers look at the policy before making a purchase, and 48% will shop more often with a retailer that offers a lenient, easy-to-understand return policy. And while this is a retailer, and not manufacturer, statistic, it does indicate the significance of returns. Furthermore, the reality is that if you have a good return management process that is headache-and-hassle free for the retailer, then the retailer is likely to offer the customer a headache-and-hassle free policy as it knows it doesn’t have to worry about getting stuck with unwanted or defective products. Putting your customer first helps your customer put the end consumer first, which, according to the UPS commissioned study quoted in the article, increases the chances that they will buy from the retailer who is your customer. Plus, 32% of customers have indicated that they will focus less on price and more on quality of service if given a lenient, easy-to-understand returns policy. That’s how you maximize revenue and profit!