Monthly Archives: January 2014

Top 12 Challenges Facing India in the Decades Ahead – 12 – Infrastructure

When it comes to infrastructure in India, as Business-in-Asia.com notes, it really is A Long Road Ahead. China really is decades ahead of India in terms of its transportation and communication infrastructure. In India, airports, rail networks, roads and ports are all in desperate need of repair, expansion, replacement, and, in some regions, creation! As Manish Agarwal stated in A Passage to Modern India (PDF) in the Summer, 2013 issue of Gridlines, decades of underinvestment have left the country with dire deficits in such critical areas as railways, roads, ports, airports, telecommunications and electricity generation. In the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report for 2011-2012, India ranked 89th out of 142 countries for its infrastructure. In this light, it’s remarkable that India is ranked 9th in (nominal) GDP by UN, IMF, and World Bank!

Roads are terrible. In a country where 65% of all freight is transported by road, this is a supply management nightmare. In fact, the traffic situation is so severe that the maximum highway speed for trucks and buses is only 30-40 km per hour! (As per a report of the Sub-Group on Policy Issues of the Government of India’s Ministry Road Transport and Highways, found on the Ministry’s Web Site.) And with the urban population expected to increase by 33% in the next five years, the situation is only going to get worse before it gets better.

Even if India succeeds in spending the 1 Trillion allocation it has committed to between now and 2017 — targeted at three airports, two ports, an elevated rail corridor in Mumbai, and almost 9,600 kms of road, the congestion eliminated will only be a drop in the bucket in a country with 87 airports that offer commercial service (Source: Wikipedia), 13 major and 187 notified minor and intermediate ports (Source: Wikipedia) of which 139 are operable (Source: India Core), 64,460 kms of rail (which is the fourth largest rail network in the world, source: Wikipedia), and 4,236,000 kms of road in 2011 (Source: Wikipedia). Thus, even if India managed to achieve its plan of building 20 kms of road a day, or 7,300 kms a year, that would only increase the total capacity by at most 0.17% annually, and do almost nothing to address the severe over-congestion plaguing the urban areas and major trade routes. Especially when India is adding about four million four-plus tire vehicles every year and about eleven million two-wheelers.

The airport situation is just as bad. Even though the country has 87 airpots with commercial service, the India Planning Commission estimates that the country will need an additional 180 airports in the next decade — so improving 3 is not going to do much! (See the 12th 5-Year Plan from 2012-2017, page 21.)

The port situation isn’t any better. As per IndiaCore, the current capacity at major ports is overstretched. The major ports together have a capacity of 215 million metric tonnes (MMT) at 1997- 98 levels (and 288 metric tons at 2001-2002 levels). However, the traffic for total ports in India was worth 740.3 MMT in 2009 and 818.7 MMT in 2010 and this is expected to rise to 1,373.1 MT in 2015 at a compound annual growth rate of 7.6% a year. In other words, throughput increased by a factor of 4 during the zeroes and is expected to increase another 50% by the end of 2015. However, investment in Indian ports in the zeroes was a mere 2.5 Billion. (Source: Global Investments in Ports and Terminals) To put this in perspective, the US West Coast ports are investing 12 Billion (Source: Pacific Merchant Shipping Association) just to handle a few more hundred MMT.

When you consider the inadequacy of the road, rail, air, and ocean transport networks, one has to wonder how India is going to cope with the expected annual rate of increase of 12% for domestic cargo and 10% for international cargo over the next five years, at the same time passenger traffic is expected to increase 12% annually domestically and 8% annually internationally. It’s a huge challenge, and one that’s not going to be solved anytime soon.

Apparently Accountants Have a Very Different Meaning for the Word Enormous

According to a recent article in Modern Material Handling (MMH), which reported on the Grant Thornton Realities of Reshoring Survey and quoted Wally Gruenes, Grant Thornton’s National Managing Partner for Industry and Client Experience, the results (of the survey) could dramatically impact U.S. trade balances, and should provide an enormous boost to domestic manufacturers, retailers, wholesaler/distributors and service providers. Great news, right?

Let’s dig in. According to the results of the survey, more than one-third of U.S. businesses are likely to move goods and services back to the United States in the next 12 months. In particular, 42% of executives indicated they were likely to bring back IT services, 37% said they were likely to bring back components/products, 35% said they were likely to bring back customer services or call centres, and 34% said they were likely to bring back (raw) material. Not exactly enormous, but not too shabby either. For one third of companies to at least be thinking in the right direction, that’s pretty good. Except when you dig in and realize that the numbers imply that as much as 5% of overall U.S. procurement may come back to the United States. 5% is not enormous! It’s not even close. And this is the best case scenario, which we know isn’t going to happen.

First of all, someone would have to get off of their @ss and push for a major change (and in your average company, meet a lot of resistance). This is something that only happens in market leaders, which we know are only (depending on which analyst firm you ask) the top 8% to the top 20% of the market. Secondly, a C-Suite executive, still focussed on quarterly numbers and penny pinching, would have to sign off on what could be moderately high one-time expenses associated with re-shoring — expenses which would be minimal in the mid-to-long term, but which would probably really irk the CFO in the short term (and mess up his attempt to look good for Wall Street). (And given the number of companies that have invested in training over the last 5 years, even though case studies from Procurement training institutes, including Next Level Purchasing, have proven ROIs of 10X to 100X from proper training investments, we know that few companies in North America put long term savings ahead of short term gains.) Thirdly, someone has to be willing to get a little egg on their face and admit that maybe outsourcing (so much) to China wasn’t that great of an idea in the first place — that if appropriate investments had been made at, or near, home to increase productivity, decrease production time (and cost), and improve operational sustainability, similar cost savings could have been made over the long term with an appropriate investment up front. How many pompous C-Suite executives in North America are willing to fess up and admit they were wrong? (Let’s put it this way, the Mad Men would be an awful lot poorer if more were.)

Long story short, if even 1% comes back this year, the doctor will join you in the dance of joy because he just doesn’t see it happening. He’d like nothing more than for 10% to come back, especially since he’s been preaching the importance of Home Cost Country Sourcing since 2007, but believes only the true market leaders will take any actions at all. Most companies just aren’t hurting enough to bother.

Network Programming Turns 65 Today!

Considering the extent of network programming that we take for granted today, with coast to coast networks and global broadcasts, it’s hard to believe that the first network broadcast took place a mere 65 years ago today when KDKA-TV went on air on January 11, 1949 (as WDTV). The 51st television station in the U.S. in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, it began with a live one-hour local broadcast from Syria, Mosque that was broadcast over the first “network” that included Pittsburgh and 13 other cities from Boston to St. Louis. It was a small network, but it was the beginning of the national, international, and global broadcasts we now have today.

Where Is Your Greatest Risk? Not Where You Think It Is.

As per a recent piece by Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and Wei in the current issue of the Harvard Business Review on managing unpredictable supply chain disruptions, there is little correlation
between how much a firm spends annually on procurement at a particular site and the impact that the site’s disruption would
have on company performance. In reality, the greatest exposures
often lie in unlikely places.

Moreover, in many supply chains, these exposures are typically not realized until a low-probability, high-impact event — such as a Hurricane, Earthquake, SARS outbreak, or other mega-disaster — occurs. In these situations, companies find out that they significantly underestimated the impact and are not adequately prepared because their traditional models for evaluating and preparing supply chain risk break down as there is typically a lack of historical data for low probability, infrequently occurring, high-impact events. (Big companies have to deal with poor supplier performance, forecast errors, and transportation breakdowns everyday and traditional risk models can thus adequately predict, and allow the organization to prepare for, these impacts.)

But, as the authors point out, it doesn’t have to be this way. Companies can not only determine the potential magnitude of a disruption without historical data, but can even do so without even knowing what the disruption is. This is because, at the end of the day, the specifics of a disruption don’t really matter — only its impacts do. Be it flood, famine, or fire — you don’t care why your factory isn’t producing — you only care that it isn’t and you have to find an alternate source of supply. And it is possible to model the impact of a disruption at any point of your supply chain without knowing the event that caused it, as an impact is either going to eliminate or cut off supply or production.

To this end if, as the authors indicate, you develop a mathematical model (that can be computerized) that focuses on the impact of potential failures at points along the supply chain (such as the shuttering of a supplier’s factory or the inaccessibility of a distribution center), rather than the cause of the disruption, you can quantify what the financial and
operational impact would be if a critical supplier’s facility were out of commission for, say, two weeks — whatever the reason. And that’s what you really care about.

In their paper, the authors describe a sophisticated linear optimization model that integrates predicted Time-To-Recovery (TTR) factors for each node (based upon historical recovery times for the supplier or distributor after a disruption) with Bill-of-Material (BoM), operational measures, financial measures, in-transit inventory levels, on-site inventory levels and demand forecasts for each product. When one node is removed at a time from this model, it can be used to find the supply chain response that would minimize the performance impact of the disruption (such as reducing inventory, shifting production, expediting transportation, or reallocating resources) and then calculate the resulting operational performance impact (PI). The node with the largest PI presents the greatest risk and is assigned the largest risk exposure index (REI) of 1.0 (and all other nodes are indexed relative to this value).

While you may need such a model to determine the full impact of a disruption, you don’t need such a complex model to determine the big hidden risks in your supply chain (which are often the result of sole-source supply arrangements somewhere in the supply chain, possibly at tier two or three). All you really need to do is map the full supply chain for every product you produce down to the raw material supply. Then you can quickly identify sole-source supply, single-factory or single location production, bottle-necks in the distribution network, etc. which lead to hidden risks.

And once you have identified the major risks, and collected the data to appropriately access the potential impacts of a disruption, you can build local models to analyze the extent of the risk exposure. And as you build more and more models, you work your way up to the point where you can begin working on the model described by Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and Wei, incrementally. No big bang modelling approach needed. All you need to do is get underway with a good supply chain visibility solution, such as Resilinc‘s.

MAP-21? Or, More Accurately, RIP-21?

Remember when SI asked if your supply chain was compliant with MAP-21 last fall (on Oct 17 and Oct 18) and pointed out, in bold, section 32918 of the new Commercial Motor Vehicle Act Safety Enhancement Act: Subtitle 1 which states that each broker subject to the requirements of this section shall provide financial security of $75,000 for purposes of this subsection, regardless of the number of branch offices or sales agents of the broker? It did this because it knew this would be a big problem. However, even SI could not have predicted the damage this has caused.

As per a recent article over on Bulk Transporter, 9,800 freight transport brokerages [were] forced to close during December which represented over 46% of the independent broker market! 46%! On December 1, there were 21,080 independent brokers. Today, there are 12,996. So, even though a few new ones opened and a few existing ones eventually managed to raise the money required for the bond (and re-opened), the number of independent brokers is still down almost 40%!

SI agrees that this is indeed a crisis for the independent freight industry and for American consumers and manufacturers, as costs will rise for virtually all goods shipped within the United States. This requirement presents independent brokers with an unreasonable, and in many cases, insurmountable barrier and virtually guarantees that only multi-nationals will be able to participate in what should be a free logistics market. 10K might have been too low, but it should be up to the merchant to decide if the bond put up by the carrier is enough or not. If all you are shipping is low cost consumer purchased goods or packaging material, a 10K to 25K bond is more than enough. If you are shipping smartPhones, you probably want the carrier to put up a 100K bond. If the market really is free, small and mid-sized business should have a choice. But now they don’t.