Category Archives: Global Trade

Category Management: Getting it Right is Key to Surviving the Trade Wars

The Trade Wars are coming. The Trump Tariffs are coming fast and furious, and the rest of the world is retaliating. So if you aren’t prepared, just about every category under your purview is about to get a LOT more expensive. A LOT more.

And while you’re not likely to thrive, because no one wins a ware, and no one comes out unscathed, you can survive — with care and planning. So what do you need to do?

1) Understand your Current Costs in Detail

Build detailed total cost of ownership cost models for all of your significant (cost/volume) or strategic purchases as if they direct purchases. The costs should be broken down into the components and raw materials that constitute at least 80% of the material cost, and, if possible, energy and labour costs should be broken out of the overheads. Done right, when you add in the “fair” margin, you have the expected unit cost.

On top of this, you add in the transportation costs, surcharges, non-recoverable taxes, import & export charges from source to sink countries, and defect/waste costs.

And this is why we noted you needed talent that could do modelling and use platforms that could handle it is important. But this is just the start. Sometimes the tariffs will be imposed on the product level, but sometimes on the material level. So, that’s why you have to …

2) Understand your Tier 2 Supply Chain in Detail

It’s not just what you’re buying and where you are buying it from, it’s what your suppliers are buying and where they are buying it from. If you’re buying your assemblies from Germany, and 15% tariffs get smacked on assembly imports, that’s a 15% increase. But that’s not the only increase you could be subject too. Maybe Germany is buying the bulk of the raw materials from China. What if Germany decides to smack 15% to 20% tariffs on almost all of the raw materials being sourced from China? Which constitute 60% of your supplier’s costs? Then their costs will go up 9% or more, and guess what’s going to happen to your costs? They’re going to go up another 9%. And you won’t know it until you get the bill!

But if you understand your Tier 2 supply chain you can know when your suppliers are going to get hit with new tariffs, and when they are going to pass on those tariffs to you. You can proactively question them if they are going to switch suppliers, and work with them to find alternative sources of supply without tariffs, or which have a lower overall total cost of acquisition than the sources of supply they are using now.

And this is why we noted you needed talent that had commodity market expertise and negotiation capability as well as a platform that could integrate real-time market data (including tariff changes) and supplier performance management.

But this is just the beginning!

Stay tuned!

Category Management: Getting it Right

As we have posted regularly, the first step is to solve the classic Triple T problem:

  • Talent
    your organization must have the right talent to properly manage your category-based initiatives
  • Technology
    your organization must have the right platforms to capture the right data and support the right processes
  • Transition Management
    your organizations must have the right processes in place to handle the necessary organizational shift to properly manage the initiatives as markets, needs, and workflows will change over time

Only once the talent, technology, and transition management is in place, will the organization have what it takes to fully embrace the initiative. And do it right. At some point we will revisit each of these requirements in more detail, but today we’re going to outline what these requirements are at a high level so that we can dive into a few key aspects that are important with the looming Trade Wars on the horizon.

So, at a high level, where should your Supply Management Organization start? By focussing on the core capabilities that are required in each “T” category, many of which we are outlining in this post. And, more importantly, finding the right talent, technology, and transition management plan that fits.

Talent for Category Management

Good category managers need at least the following hard and soft skills:

  • Analysis
    to determine the volume and spend in the category
  • Modelling
    to determine the major cost components, and cost drivers, of the major products or services in the category
  • Commodity Market Expertise
    in the major raw materials and commodities used in the production of the major products in the category
  • Stakeholder Management
    as savings and performance improvement will usually come from consolidating related items with a smaller set of suppliers, which is going to ruffle some feathers when some departments lose their coveted suppliers and supply relationships.
  • Negotiation
    since not only will the individual need to consolidate a set of commodity purchases with a single supplier, but the individual will also need to cut a good deal and maybe even convince the supplier to take some business it normally wouldn’t want
  • Change Management
    since good category management typically requires changing the way the organization conducts business today

Technology for Category Management

Appropriate technology platforms for category management will have at least the following features:

  • Spend Analytics
    with extensive aggregation, cubing, and filtering capability
    as the category manager needs to not only extract volume and spend, but identify related products and services based on components, raw-materials, and sub/related services
  • Should Cost Modelling
    which allows the category manager to understand not only what the product should cost but the primary cost components and the appropriate inputs to an optimization model
  • (Real-Time) Market Data
    which allows the category manager to track historical market trends and predict future prices to time the market if prices are volatile
  • Supplier Performance Management
    which allows the category manager to track and manage supplier performance
  • RFX
    to manage the data collection and track supplier bids and responses before and during negotiations

Transition to Category Management

In order to transition to proper category management, the organization needs to hire someone with good change management skills and give that person the tools he or she needs to get it done. That person also needs to be a natural born leader and someone who can work with teams to get it done. Then, that person needs to identify a change management methodology and adapt it to organizational needs. And, most importantly, get buy in using the aforementioned natural born leader and workforce harmonization skills.

This isn’t a complete (laundry) list of what is required for successful category management, but it’s a good starting point. Get the right talent, technology, and transition management in place, and your organization will be well on its way to category management success. More details to come! Especially with respect to the looming trade war!

Is Your Organization Serving the Right Market?

If your Supply Management organization is part of a global multi-national, chances are that it has been buying from China and selling to the U.S. for years. And, for a few of you (in heavy machinery, luxury goods, etc.), chances are that your Supply Management organization is producing Made in the USA goods and selling these to China. But should it be?

Ignoring the fact that rising costs in transportation and production (due to raw materials and the inevitable rise in labor wages) coupled with the decline of the US dollar often make sourcing close to home (in Mexico) or, when possible, at home cheaper than off-shoring, especially when quality and risk-related costs are taken into account, now that Trump has brought back the trade wars, much of those savings are flying out the window faster than a Peregrine Falcon diving for its prey. (If you’re not sure how fast it is, Google It .) So, as we have been posting recently, you really need to rethink your global supply chain (and possibly look to Russia, Turkey, etc.).

And, despite the headlines being made over the move, look to copy Harvey Davidson and shift production of certain goods (closer) to the primary markets they are being sold in. (Bureaucrats can threaten higher taxes all they want, but unless laws are passed through both houses and signed by the President for the tax category they are in, nothing can be done. And as long as the move doesn’t change the structure of the company, the only result will be a lot of hot air and wasted words and a temporary drop in stock price. In other words, don’t move all your production out of a market, especially if you are selling in that market, or even the majority, without checking with your accountant and lawyer first.)

Because, if you buy and sell in a market, there are no import or export tariffs, and the way the trade wars are going, this is a big savings and an opportunity to claim more market share if you can sell an equally desired, equal (or better) quality product for a lower price due to a smarter supply chain design that keeps your costs down. For example, I don’t think anyone in Europe would mind if Harley said it was staffing its European Facility with German and Austrian trained Engineers but keeping the authentic American designs. In fact, the bikes might even become more desirable as German and Austrian Engineers are often seen to be the best in the world.)

And if you’re selling overseas, especially to China, producing overseas, or in China, makes sense. We don’t often think about it, but, due to population and wealth (around 15% of GDP now), China is the world’s largest consumer of automobiles, motorcycles, mobile phones, luxury goods, and shoes and at least the world’s second largest consumer of home appliances, consumer electronics, jewelry, and the internet (based on data that is a few years old, but all trends were rising). Thus, if you are in any of these industries, why not produce in China for China?

Remember the facts. China, which is the world’s second largest economy, is approaching 1.3 Billion people and an emerging middle class flocking to urban areas. A recent McKinsey & Company study had over two thirds of the Chinese population as middle class and predicted three quarters would be by 2022. And about 56% of the population has internet access, with most of these individuals having broadband access in their densely populated urban centers. In fact, China is estimated to have close to 100 cities with a middle-class population of 250K or more. The US and Canada combined have less than 70 such cities.

And India is growing. It’s GDP is now almost half that of China’s. And while it’s middle class population isn’t nearly as large yet (as it has almost as many people as China), at about 21%, or 270 Million people, that’s still at least 50% more middle class than in the United States!

And South Korea’s GDP has more than doubled since the turn of the millennia. In fact, an article from 2015 predicted they’ll have a better standard of living than the French by 2020, with an adjusted GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted) heading towards 50K. Right now, the average annual household income is 48K, which is only 20% less than the median household income in the US! At presents, two thirds of their households are middle class, the average household has one child and dual income, and both earners University educated. Talk about consumer marketer’s paradise!

In fact, when you look at all of this, maybe you should just relocate your company to Asia, make the US a subsidiary, streamline operations to produce just what you need for NA in NA, and focus on Asian growth. Seems to make more sense, doesn’t it?

Trade is Getting Complicated. Trade Agreements More So. Are Your Contracts Up to Snuff?

It’s difficult enough to create contracts that specify what both parties want, but with the shifting global landscape, crumbling trade agreements, new ones rising to take their place, and new regulations cropping up all the time that companies need to adhere to just to do business in their home country, it’s almost impossible.

How do you define contracts that keep up? And, more importantly, how do you figure out which of your contracts are not up to par, and where they are falling short?

In the first case, you constantly monitor government sites, associations, and news sites for mention of new regulations and requirements to adhere to them. Then you process the news, make sense of the new requirements, and find some experts to help you understand the best way to contractually deal with the new rules.

In the second case, you need to be able to quickly analyze a contract and determine if there are clauses to address the regulations. But if it’s a 50 page contract, that’s not a quick effort. And if you have 1,000 of them? 10,000 of them? How can you even attempt to do that?

Manually, you can’t. You need tech that can identify which contracts are likely lacking one or more clauses to address one or more regulations and bring them to your attention, in order of priority. Advanced, semantic, technology that can understand documents, deficiencies, and suggest potential fixes.

And a few companies understand that, and that’s why you see the likes of companies like LawGeex and LegalSifter rising up to challenge Seal with a new take on contract analytics and the need for. Because, one way or another, once you reach a certain point on your sourcing journey, you’re going to need this technology.

Will Trump’s America First Policies Put America Last?

Trump wants to bring production back to America, and that’s a noble effort and, for many companies, a smarter thing to do than they realize as escalating logistics costs and global uncertainty make near-shoring and, even better, home-shoring much less risky (and, in the long run, often more cost effective) than off-shoring, especially when there’s no good reason to off-shore.

But Trump’s recent almost across-the-board tariffs are going to cost some American manufacturers anywhere between millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars as, simply put, due to a lack of availability of certain resources, Americans have to import. The net effect of so many lower-cost global options over the years is that American companies went off-shore for just about everything they figured they could get cheaper, and as a result not only has there been little to no growth in raw-material extraction and production at home, but some industries have actually lost capacity. And that capacity can’t be turned on and ramped up over night.

As a result, Americans need to import aluminum, steel, and other metals, at least for the short term. And while most of that importation should come from near-source locations (like Canada and Mexico, especially if the US wants to maintain NAFTA, which, for the most part, is better for it than Canada and Mexico [combined]) to decrease risk and increase border security (after all, it has two borders — Canada and Mexico; working with Canada and Mexico on security issues makes the entire North American continent safer), Americans have such high demand in some categories even Canada and Mexico can’t meet it all.

For now, American manufacturers have no choice to but import their raw materials from other (non-exempted) countries. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality. And if any of these companies have access to good global strategic sourcing optimization and supply chain planning tools, they’re going to start modelling and realize that it’s cheaper in the mid-term, and maybe even the short term, to manufacturer whatever is intended for the global market outside the US. Rev that factory back up in Mexico and serve the world from there. Only manufacture at home what is needed at home.

And what happens if companies shift their operations to other jurisdictions? America loses jobs, tax revenue, and it’s share of the global GDP. That’s, hopefully, not what Trump, or anyone inside North America, wants.

And while there should be tariffs on goods imported from jurisdictions a country can’t compete with and, in particular, a country that allows its corporations to pay it’s employees $2 a day for a job an American would have to be paid at least $58 a day for (as there’s no way America could compete with imports otherwise), those tariffs should be designed not to hurt the manufacturers who depend on raw materials they can’t get at home, or at least be used to fund local raw material extractors / producers to give those companies at home a local option. For instance, all tariffs collected should go into a fund to help local raw material extractors and producers expand or increase production, and until that happens, companies that need to rely on imports in the interim should at least get tax credits until such a time as they have a local option. Or they are just going to find ways to take as much of their business as they can elsewhere.

And that won’t make America great again, or even competitive. While I actually agree with the premise that, especially when it comes to manufacturing and agriculture and staple industries, America needs to be great again, unfortunately, just slapping import tariffs without a broader plan to achieve that goal is not only not going to help, but it’s going to hurt.