Monthly Archives: April 2016

Environmental Sustentation 22: Natural EMPs

In our post on environmental damnation 22, natural EMPs, we noted that EMPs, short for electromagnetic pulses, which are short, typically intense, bursts of electromagnetic energy that are generally disruptive, if not damaging, to electrical and electronic equipment, are a huge overlooked supply chain damnation because today’s information driven supply chains run on communication systems that control the chains, as well as the finances that pay for them. A single well-placed burst can take out an entire data centre, and if your organization is not setup in a distributed infrastructure with distributed off-site backups, your entire operation will come to a screeching halt — indefinitely!

No one thinks about this because people believe that the only real concern is EMP weapons, but these are only possessed by a few military operations that are unlikely to ever use them as they could destroy their equipment at the same time, but this is not true. Natural EMPs, which cannot be predicted and cannot be stopped, can do just as much damage and are much more likely to fry your equipment and bring down your supply chain than a rogue attack by a terrorist group that happened to get their hands on an EMP.

As per our damnation post, whether you realize it or not, there are a number of natural events that cause natural EMPs including, but not limited to:

  • lightning,
  • solar flares, and
  • earthquakes and volcanoes.

There is typically warning of the potential of each of these events, as well as the area and the likelihood, but the warning could be brief and the ability to prevent nonexistent, so any warning is likely to be too late.

So what can an organization do to protect against this damnation?

First of all, it can make sure that critical equipment is shielded, and located in shielded rooms. Low power EMPs will then not be much of a threat to that equipment.

Second of all, it can install equipment to divert as much of the pulse as possible. For example, a well placed lightening rod can divert lightening, and any EMP that might accompany it.

Thirdly, it can make sure it has a distributed infrastructure with real-time failover and distributed, real-time incremental back-up. Then, an EMP that takes out part of the IT operation in one locale will not take down the entire information (and financial) chain.

It’s not much, but it is enough. And at the same time, the organization also protects against fire, flood, and the FBI (raid) destroying a critical data centre.

RIP, PER

Fifty-Five (55) years ago today, the Pacific Electric Railway, once the largest electric railway in the world in the 1920s, ended operations.

It was a sad day in history because despite the perceived infrastructure cost, electric transportation can be a lot a cheaper than gas-transportation with the regular, repeated, rises in oil that have been happening over the past 40 years, especially when you consider improvements in electricity generation from sustainable sources including sun, wind, and water power that is almost free once the infrastructure has been paid for.

As this isn’t an engineering or energy blog, we won’t dive into pages of discussion as to why clean, smog-free electric streetcars are much preferable to the gas-guzzling busses of today, but simply mourn the passing of the streetcar and the great networks that used to power the great cities of North America.

Regulatory Sustentation 36: Labelling

As per our damnation post, while the the subject of labelling sounds harmless enough, it can still pose a nightmare for your supply chain. Products that are not properly labelled can be held up or seized at the border, seized for violation of state or federal labelling regulations from your warehouses or shelves, or result in massive fines and trade embargoes until the problem is corrected.

And it’s not as easy to adhere to labelling requirements as one might think. For example, in food and beverage, many jurisdictions require not only that all products contain nutritional information but also indicate whether or not the products are derived from GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms). In the tobacco industry, despite continuous threats of lawsuits from the tobacco companies, countries are starting to impose plain packaging laws and third parties dictate what packaging can and can not contain. In electronics, some countries are considering imposing laws that force a company to indicate the expected lifespan of the product being produced and how long it will be supported (as this is very important to a consumer spending hundreds, or thousands, on a new electronic device with the belief that the manufacturer is going to support the hardware and software for at least a few years). And different countries require different units, warnings, languages, etc.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, because consumers deserve to know what they are buying, but if multiple jurisdictions require different labelling requirements, it can be difficult to produce a label that satisfies all of the jurisdictions that operate under the same language. And if the company needs to produce a multi-lingual label that satisfies multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries, it can be a nightmare.

As per our damnation post, there are steps a company can take, namely:

  • the implementation of a Global Trade Management (GTM) solution,
  • careful review of each proposed label for full compliance before it is seen to the packaging supplier, and
  • monitoring for changes in labelling requirements so that the company does not get caught off-guard

but if a company is really ahead of the game, it will also:

    • monitor for proposed changes in labelling requirements and make sure it is in compliance before they happen if approval is likely and
    • monitor for key issues and complaints by buyers and find ways to proactively address issues before lawmakers tackle them and take a leadership position, which will improve the brand.

And, of course, make your labels as easy to understand as possible. If the product is packaged in 1L, don’t put nutrition counts for 278 ml against suggested daily values that aren’t even indicated on the package. NO one can quickly do that math in their head!

Organizational Sustentation 53: Engineering

Engineering designs the products that represent a product-based company’s life-blood, as they generate the cash necessary for operations. No company exists without revenue (NO Sale, NO Store), and revenue only comes from the sale of products or services. And those have to be designed by someone, and that someone is typically an engineer. And while Engineers are the top talent in the company, as well as the best educated talent, they can also be stubborn rigid perfectionists.

As per our damnation post, each engineer has a process, a design, a set of approved raw materials, and that is the process, the design, and the set of approved raw materials. Trying to convince them that there is another process, alternate design, or other raw material that could be useable is like trying to force molasses to flow up a glacier, as this would mean that they would have to accept that there are better processes, designs, and raw materials, and that they exist today (despite the engineer’s expensive research and experience).

And even if they are willing to accept there are better processes, design, and approved raw materials — they are perfectionists. The cost model might say that 98% reliability is good enough because, in practice, only 1% of units will break down before the warranty period expires and the cost of flat out replacement will have little impact on profit margin, but Engineering will say otherwise. They will insist on the supplier with 99% reliability even with a 30% cost increase because a good engineer makes the best product they can make, cost be damned.

So how do you deal with this damnation so Procurement can achieve some sustentation? Education.

The first thing you need to educate is that reliability is not the number one concern, safety is. If a laptop, music player, TV, etc. stops working, it doesn’t harm anyone. The buyer might be annoyed, but if you immediately rush out a brand new replacement, the buyer won’t be annoyed for long. As long as the product doesn’t short out and electrocute the user, there’s no issue with a little less reliability.

The second thing you need to educate them is that sustainability trumps supplier longevity. A company has to plan for the future, not rest on past laurels, especially if those past laurels are suppliers that have never been questioned. While every supplier was likely a great choice for one reason or another at the time the supplier was selected, the supplier might not be such a great choice today. All suppliers have to be reviewed at one point in time, and if there are more sustainable suppliers, they have to be investigated.

The third thing you need to do is educate them that you can help them identify suppliers that could have better processes, designs, or raw material formulations and save them a lot of time searching for new alternatives, as you will be scouring the market on their behalf and only bringing them suppliers that might truly have a better, or different, option. As the gate-keeper, you will save them a lot of time.

Engineers are your best allies – they are educated, rational, and want to do the right thing for the organization, like you. So show them how you can help, and be willing to listen (and learn) from them, and you will be able to overcome this organizational damnation.

Failure to Monitor a Supply Chain for Risk Can Tarnish Your Brand

In our last post on Playing With Fire: Hidden Risks in Your Supply Chain, we discussed how your supply chain is filled with hidden risks which can bleed your bank account dry and bring your supply chain to a screeching halt if they rise up and rear their ugly head.

But they can do more than bleed the bank account and stop your supply chain in its tracks, they can tarnish your brand and cause permanent damage to your company. A recent study by CIRANO found that while there is an 80% chance of a company losing at least 20% of its value at least once during a five year period as a result of a negative, but well publicized, incident, a major incident that negatively impacts the brand in a significant way can be much worse. Just ask Airbus that had its stock plummet by over 26% in a single day, equivalent to a market capitalization loss of approximately €5.4 Billion, after it announced on the close of trading on June 13, 2006 that issues with the supply and installation of electrical harnesses would lead to a further six-month delay in the delivery of the A380 (and that the impact of the disruption on earnings before interest and tax would be €500M per year for four years).

Or ask BP, which, as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded on April 20, 2010, saw its stock price fall by 52% in 50 days. Ouch!

But it’s not just supply delays or disasters that cause loss of brand value. It’s reported violations of clean air, water, energy and other environmental acts that get environmentally conscious consumers to boycott your products after environmental activists get up in arms. It’s poor treatment, or even discrimination of, a class of people that can also get a company in trouble. If your supplier is known to regularly subject its employees to unfit working conditions and violate wage acts, that’s a problem. If a CXO regularly goes on record speaking out against minority groups’s rights (include the LGBTQ community or immigrants), that’s a problem. And if there are investigations of corruption, that’s a big problem.

It’s more than just environmental non-compliance risks that you have to watch out for. To find out more, check out Sourcing Innovation’s latest paper on Playing With Fire – 4 Hidden Risks Lurking in Your Supply Chain, sponsored by Ecovadis to find out the major categories of risk you need to watch out for, some major impacts of each type of risk, and just how many zeros they could take off the end of your bank account.