Category Archives: Cost Reduction

Value Add is Taking Precedence Over Cost Cutting — This is a Good Sign

The Summer issue of the CPO Agenda summarized their most recent six month survey in “growth curve” which found that a broader focus on value adding instead of cost cutting alone is emerging, highlighting once again that businesses are gearing for growth. This is a good sign. As SI has been repeating again and again over the last few months — a Supply Management organization will not advance to the next level unless it adopts, first and foremost, a focus on value and advances beyond operational excellence to a state of strategic business enablement.

There is still a pressure to reduce and control costs, as 2/3rds of organizations are reporting an intensified pressure to reduce costs, but this is down 25% from six months ago, which means the leaders (who never compromise more than the top 20% of organizations) have shifted their sights back to value. Plus, only 1/4 of the organizations are reporting delayed investment decisions for new technology or expert consulting, down from 1/2 a mere six months ago. Plus, 41% of organizations said they are preparing for growth and recovery and 2/3rds of organizations have either undergone a transformation program in the past 12 months or are planning one with the number one goal to achieve greater alignment with the business. Good news indeed. Let’s hope that these organizations follow through!

Cost is Just Another Component of Risk (Bonus NPX Take Away 3)

One of the most useful, and possibly controversial take aways, from the NPX exchange put on by The Mpower Group is that a Next Practice organization should not have cost as part of its value equation as a focus on cost has not only not served the Supply Management community well, but has destroyed incalculable value over the years. This is especially true in high-value or strategic categories.

Cost should be viewed as just another component risk, and in particular, the risk of cost increase beyond an acceptable level is what the organization should be focussed on. Furthermore, once the organization has established that cost is in an acceptable band, the organization should remove cost from the equation entirely in high value and strategic categories.

The reality is that for some categories, a +/- of up to 5% is insignificant when compared to the critical factors of stability of supply, quality, and flexibility. Consider the Apple iPad. While it is obviously in Apple’s best interest to drive down cost as much as possible, it’s more important that Apple be able to guarantee supply, quality, and flexibility in its supply chain. The extra savings of $2 on each unit will not make up for the loss in profit if Apple fails to deliver on 100,000 orders. Nor will it make up for the warranty costs if the quality drops to the point where Apple has to make 25% more repairs under service contract.

So if you really want to focus on value, band cost, and then remove it from the top-level value equation altogether as cost control then becomes simply another component of risk management in the overall value equation. The organization just might see better results in its high-value and strategic categories.

Comments?

Don’t Overlook the Soft Cost Savings from SOW Management

A recent article in the SIG Newsletter on the “best practices for managing and analyzing statement of work spend” that described the rapidly maturing market for centralized SOW (Statement of Work) management programs and the usefulness of a modern VMS (Vendor Management System) also described the one-time and continous benefits of managed SOW programs (under the guidance of a PMO – Program Management Office) and the hard and soft cost savings that resulted. While many organizations move to managed SOW programs, often through a MSP (Managed Services Provider), in pursuit of the hard dollar cost savings, that are often in the 10% to 15% range when done properly, the long term soft cost savings will often be more valuable.

In particular, the following benefits are invaluable to an average organization:

  • single point of contact for contingent labor needs
    no need to contact, and manage, multiple providers to fill different labor needs
  • reduced cycle times
    one call and the PMO or MSP uses a process already in place to locate and onboard your contingent labor
  • standardized criteria
    every department uses the same definition, and the company pays one rate for one type of resource
  • increased visibility
    one report shows the total spend on contingent / managed labour by type, department, provider, etc.
  • compliance firewall for classification, tax, and labor law issues
    which significantly decreases the risk of a massive fine when the same contingent workers are repeatedly rehired (and the government decides they are now employees and you owe more taxes and benefits)
  • standardized performance metrics
    and managed suppliers who know what is expected of them
  • better labor needs forecasting
    from complete and accurate contingent workforce data
  • payment management
    no interest from late payments, no overpayments, and, most importantly, no double payments

All of these benefits reduce complexity, increase reliability, and reduce risk — which keeps costs down in the long run as complexity, risk, and uncertainty only serve to drive up cost.

Cross-Docking Challenges, Part II

Part I noted how cross-dociking can be a great way to cut transportation costs if done right, because handling of goods while in transit, adds labor and time, which in turn costs the organization hard dollars and profit, but also noted that cross-docking is not without its challenges. It then went on to define eight of the biggest cross-docking challenges faced by an average organization.

This post is going to address what an organization can do to address each of the challenges and see the ROI from cross-docking that it expects to achieve.

Unpredictable Customer Demand
There are two things an organization can do to address unpredictable customer demand. It can restrict cross-docking to primary distribution centers, or it can invest in reusable multi-level packaging. In the first case, when a container hits a primary port or DC, it will use cross-docking to divert the inbound product to the regional DCs, but will not use cross-docking to divert the goods from the regional DCs to the stores. In the second case, it will package small goods in smaller bundles, and if the boxes are too small to allow for efficient handling, it will place those boxes in larger, recyclable boxes or reusable containers and then, depending on demand updates, break the boxes or containers down to ship the revised quantities to the end locations.

IT System Support
This is easy — the organization invests in a new TMS (Transportation Management System) or WMS (Warehouse Management System) that is designed to support the organization’s cross-docking needs. Such a system will also likely come with advanced analytics, modelling, simulation, and/or optimization capabilities that will help the organization identify additional opportunities for cost saving.

Changing Business Dynamics
Cross-docking has to be part of the network (re)design, and not just an ad-hoc afterthought, and the contracts have to be written with the same flexibility as the shipping, distribution, and (temporary) warehousing contracts. This way it is no more risky than the other supply network activities and no less ill-fitted than the rest of the network should dynamics change.

Supplier Reliability
The organization has to build appropriate performance metrics into its sourcing contracts and establish appropriate SRM/SPM/SD (Supplier Relationship Management / Supplier Performance Management / Supplier Development) programs to insure that suppliers have, or build, a track record of on-time delivery.

Carrier Reliability
The organization has to build appropriate performance metrics, penalties, and out clauses, into its logistics contracts and establish appropriate monitoring policies and procedures to make sure its carriers deliver on time.

Facility Design
The organization has to select facilities appropriate to its crossdocking needs or invest in the necessary leasehold improvements to insure its cross-docking operations run smoothly.

Shelf Life
The organization has to adopt a FGIFGO (First-Group In, First-Group Out) policy and allow for newer products, with about the same shelf-life, to be sent out if currently cross-docked. If the product on the shelf has 27 days life, and product in the truck has 30 days left, there’s not much difference and it should send the product currently on the truck out if it can cross-dock. However, if product on the shelf has 14 days and product on the truck has 28 days, then, unless it can guarantee the product on the shelf will go out in the next 24 hours, it has to send out the product on the shelf. For each product, it has to define “close-enough” time-bands, and accept substitutions within the same time-band that are “close-enough”. (Unless, of course, there is product on the shelf about to expire, in which case it can define an override.)

ROI
The organization implements the right group of policies and procedures that will minimize touch and maximize ROI.

In other words, while cross-docking presents challenges on the road to success and cost savings, each challenge can be overcome and an organization that perseveres will see significant cost reductions in its logistics and transportation spend.

Cross-Docking Challenges, Part I

Cross-Docking can be a great way to cut transportation costs if done right, because handling of goods while in transit, adds labor and time, which in turn costs the organization hard dollars and profit. But cross-docking is not without its challenges. A recent piece over on Supply Chain Digest on how interest in cross-docking is high, but challenges are many did a great job in summarizing some of the largest challenges.

Unpredictable Customer Demand
The organization might know with 95% certainty that it is going to sell 500,000 units of its new mobile phone in the United States, but it may have a hard time predicting at a granular level which markets are going to take off first, and which markets will be the hottest. That can make it difficult to determine whether to route 500, 5,000, or 50,000 to a local DC.

IT System Support
Many TMS (Transportation Management Systems) and WMS (Warehouse Management Systems) were not designed to support cross-docking. Consider these quotes from participants at the recent WERC (Warehouse Education and Research Council) annual conference who said that “the WMS wants the goods to be in a pickable location before it can allocate the goods to the DC orders” and that, in the ERP system, “goods received one day simply could not be allocated for orders until the following day”. How can an organization support cross-docking if the systems don’t support it?

Changing Business Dyanmics
In some organizations, the business dynamics, which depend on local and global market conditions, can be as unpredictable as the customer demand.

Supplier Reliability
In order to cross-dock goods from four different suppliers onto the same outbound truck, all four suppliers have to ship the required quantities on time.

Carrier Reliability
In order to cross-dock goods from four different source locations onto the same outbound truck, all of the carriers have to deliver on time.

Facility Design
The facility needs to be designed to accommodate the crossdock process. If the facility can only support two trucks at a time, for example, it is hard to cross-dock off of four trucks onto one.

Shelf-Life
First In, First Out (FIFO) principles can also add complexity, because companies in expiration date sensitive industries, are reluctant to ship a more recently manufactured/received product if older product is sitting on the shelf, even if that requires extra handling than would be the case if inbound receipts were crossdocked for cross-docking customers.

ROI
At some companies, cross-docking is still “high touch,” resulting in higher processing costs than the organization initially thought was possible.

So what can a company do to overcome these challenges and get benefits from cross-docking? Stay tuned.