Category Archives: Logistics

Materials Requirement Planning DOES NOT Optimize Materials Replenishment. GenLots!

If you engage in direct manufacturing, chances are you have a semi-modern Enterprise Resource Planning solution (or at least a precursor Material Requirements Planning Solution) augmented by a semi-modern Supply Chain Planning solution designed to optimize your forecasts, inventory levels, and production. Chances are also good that based on forecasts (which are at least calculated down to weekly, if not daily, intervals), inventory levels (which are updated based on weekly or daily utilization by production), desired safety stock levels, and safety buffers on lead times, you have auto-replenishment set-up and the ERP will automatically generate re-orders based on lead times, safety stock alerts, or manual forecast alterations.

Chances are even greater that your demand planners will believe these are good and automatically approve them without further thought because the material requirements plan was optimized against the forecast and all available data.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

An optimal plan for production is NOT an optimal plan for purchase. Production requires having the right inventory on hand when you need it for the levels you need to support, balancing inventory against stock-out and obsolescence/expiration risk. Purchasing requires buying at the right volumes to take advantage of economies of scale (and tier discounts) and using the right distribution options to optimal capacity, balancing an economic order quantity (that minimizes total landed cost at a minimum) against inventory holding costs and risks of obsolescence/expiration. Your SCP enhanced ERP/MRP does the first. NOT the second. (There may be dozens of SCP systems out there, but since NONE of them support sourcing or procurement, NONE of them have the other half of the data that they would need to do this.)

And for mid-size manufacturers, this is costing them MILLIONS of dollars a year. And for large enterprise manufacturers, tens of millions of dollars a year. (In fact, the average loss from failing to optimize replenishment is 10% of inventory! This means that for every 100 Million of inventory maintained in a large enterprise, 10M is being lost. TEN MILLION.)

This is why GenLots exists — to optimize replenishment and minimize overall material lifecycle costs while maintaining (and, if possible, increasing) service levels and reducing overall working capital needs. In fact, this is so important, that this is all GenLots does (because no one else does it — which is partially the case because none of these SCP solutions do Direct Sourcing or even Direct Procurement properly, as per an ongoing Sourcing Innovation series being co-developed with Supply Chain Matters).

There are three main parts to the GenLots solution:

  • Order AI: the core optimization engine that can be directly integrated with your ERP (and is currently directly connected to SAP as a SAP Partner on the SAP store) that automatically pulls (and deletes) all the auto-generated replenishment orders from the ERP and replaces them with MR-optimized orders
  • Order UI: the UI that allows the purchasing manager to see all of the orders generated, what the original order was, and what savings and service level increases resulted from the modified order
  • Policy Advisor: the optimization-enhanced simulation engine that advises the organization on how to set their safety stocks, lead time buffers, MOQs, preferred discount tiers (for suppliers to bid against), default re-order windows, etc.

Order AI

Built on solid decision optimization and machine learning algorithms, the Order AI automatically retrieves every generated purchase order for a raw material in the ERP and calculates the right order quantity (and order date) based upon the raw material cost model (including the logistics costs using the proper mode of transport and default mode capacity), lot constraints (due to supplier or carrier capacity), scheduling requirements (based on delivery windows and processing time), safety settings (stock levels and lead time buffers), expiry windows (for perishable or decomposable stock), and, if desired, CO2 emissions (based on the available distribution options).

Order UI

This allows you to examine the orders created by GenLots and not only see the differences in order quantity and order/ship date, but the overall impacts on cost, overhead, working capital, and service level. For each material, it will break down the difference between the original supply chain cost with the system generated orders and the current supply chain cost with the GenLots orders by computing the order savings (processing and logistics costs), inventory (overhead) savings, and waste/scrap/obsolescence savings. And while the average is 10%, they have seen savings of 50% or more due to high shipment costs from too many shipments (with trucks going half full) on low value inventory, and from high waste costs (from manufacturers that pushed the safety stock and safety buffers too high and ended up wasting a lot of materials in F&B and Pharma manufacturing where shelf life of some products is very limited). It will also indicate the (estimated) service level achieved with its plan.

Policy Advisor

Optimal buys require not just optimal plans (because if that were enough, then maybe the SCP solutions wouldn’t be doing such a dismal job and costing you 10 Million on every 100 Million that flows through your warehouses), but also optimal parameters. The Policy advisor can be used to run multiple simulations to determine, for each material (based upon the production forecasts it is tied to), the appropriate safety settings (to optimize inventory levels against required service levels, warehouse capacities and carrying costs, and risk of waste), stock levels, lot sizes (and price tiers to request from suppliers), and service levels for the organization, which can lead to even greater cost savings in material replenishment when appropriately defined. (Remember, the optimization works within parameters you restrict it to, so if you restrict it to bad bounds, it won’t be able to save you nearly as much as you could save.)

Expert Support

Even though it’s available on the SAP Store, this is one solution where you should go direct (to GenLots). GenLots preferred methodology, even if the integration is literally plug-and-play for you as a SAP client (who has invested the effort to clean up their forecasting and ERP-based re-order and approval processes and ensure that clean, valid data is always available down to at least weekly intervals) is to work with its clients for the first six to twelve weeks (depending on organizational size), make sure everything runs smooth, and help its clients define the optimal (starting) policy to maximize the value and success of the GenLots solution. This is because they not only want you to see results, but see the full extent of results possible. When it comes to material replenishment, the reality is that just because you identify a few million in savings, that doesn’t mean the solution is working well. If your inventory value over a year exceeds 100 Million, it’s likely that you have a ten million dollar savings opportunity and they want to do everything in their power to maximize your chances of seeing that.

(And if, at the end of the day, with their expert guidance you only see a few million in savings, you can pat yourself on the back for being best in class in forecasting, re-order windows, and optimizing inventory policies, because you’d have to be to not see a massive savings in your first year. [Odds of this happening are less than 1/5 though if you are going through over 100M in inventory a year.] It’s no different than applying strategic sourcing decision optimization across your major categories — no matter how good you thought you were doing, studies showed time and time again an average savings of over 10% because you just couldn’t model all of the variables and compute all of the trade-offs [while adhering to all the constraints] through simple spreadsheet calculations.)

Proven Solution

GenLots may not be a name that you know in North America, but it’s one you should. Founded in 2017, the solution has been under consistent development for eight years, in daily production for six years, and is currently being used by 100 Billion-Plus companies to optimize their replenishment schedules, reduce inventory up to 20%, deliveries up to 50%, and save up to 10 Million for every 100 Million of inventory processed. It’s the best kept secret that needs to be exposed because you’re losing millions, your SCP and ERP providers will never admit otherwise, and you can stem the bleeding with a software license that starts at only 5 figures a year!

Why You Need BTCHaaS!

Nine years ago we told you that you needed MROaaS, and you most definitely do, but it’s not enough anymore, now that you can’t predict what your parts are going to cost now that you’re Back in the U.S.S.R, you also need BTCHaaS: Border Transport Cost Heuristics as a Service.

Basically, now that USA border tariffs (and counter-tariffs from Canada and Mexico) are more unpredictable than the weather (where 3 day forecasts in some areas approach 97%, East Coast Canada excluded, and 10-day forecast accuracy is approaching 50%), and come and go on a daily basis, you need a border transport (BT) solution that uses predictive analytics solution that minimizes your tariff impacts that uses cost heuristics (CH) derived from similar prior patterns in similar tariff announcements and withdrawals, costs per day of delay, and spoilage risk.

Basically, you have this dilemma. When a tariff is announced on the border your truck is scheduled to cross for the day it is scheduled to cross, do you

  1. accept is a cost of business, do nothing, and have it cross as normal
  2. send it to a truck stop and tell it to wait for a revised decision tomorrow
  3. turn it back around, unload, and do without (for now)

Depending on:

  • the value of what’s in the truck
  • the risk of spoilage
  • your contractual requirements
  • storage costs on the other side of the border
  • the tariff(s) that will be applied

Your best option on any particular day will vary. For example:

  • if the tariff is likely to be rescinded in the next three days, and you can wait a day or three, maybe you tell the driver to wait and pay an extra one to three days of salary/transport fee
  • if the tariff is not likely to be rescinded in the next three days, but likely within the next few weeks, and the tariffs would be in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you can do without the goods for a few weeks, maybe you send the truck to a local warehouse and pay a temporary storage fee
  • if the tariff is not likely to be rescinded at all, and you can do without the goods in the short term, and you are not contractually obligated to take them (which might also be the case if the tariffs are so high that they qualify as force majeure), maybe you turn the truck around and drop them off where you picked them up
  • if the tariff is not likely to be rescinded, and you can’t do without the goods, then you should just cross the border

But that’s not an easy decision to make on the spot. You need to know

  • the transport, and waiting, cost per day
  • the (potential) cost of (additional) spoilage (i.e. 5% of produce may spoil)
  • the (potential) cost of any delay
  • the cost of the tariff
  • the cost of localized storage (plus the additional unloading and loading fees)
  • the likelihood of a decision change within a short time frame (3 days) and a mid-time frame (3 weeks) based on market data and sentiment analysis to tariff announcements

and do all the calculations and make recommendations based on the possibilities for you, a human with human intelligence (HI!), to accept or reject. After all, if the truck is carrying 2 Million of electronics or auto parts, a 25% tariff is 500K, and it doesn’t cost anywhere near that to make the driver wait an extra couple of days (and to hire a few security guards to keep it safe), and will be worth it if the likelihood of a reversal, or significant reduction, is high.

So yes, MROaaS is not enough anymore … you now need BTCHaaS!

There is a Price of Relocating to “Friendly Countries”, but There Are also Corresponding Cost Reductions

This originally posted on January 3 (2024), but is being reprinted in case you missed it due to the rising importance of near/home shoring!

A recent article in El Pais on the price of relocating factories to ‘friendly countries’ noted that according to the European Central Bank (ECB), 42% of the large companies in the Old Continent that it has recently surveyed have resolved to produce in allied countries as a means of reducing risks. However, this relocation carries economic consequences, and international institutions — such as the IMF and the ECB — warn of its impact on growth and soaring prices.

The article is right. Some prices will go up as countries move out of countries in, or likely to engage in conflict, both of the physical (war) and the economic (closed borders, significant tariff increases, rolling lockdowns, etc.) variety, and move to more “friendly” countries. (As far as SI is concerned, it shouldn’t just be “friendly” countries, it should be “friendly countries close to home”. At least companies are realizing that China and/or the lowest cost country is not always the answer when that answer comes with risks that, when they materialize, could lead to skyrocketing costs and losses that dwarf five years of “savings”.

Furthermore, even though 60% of those contacted said that changes in the location of production and/or cross-border sourcing of supplies had push up their average prices over the past five years, this hasn’t been true across the board, it doesn’t have to be true, and some of those could still see savings as they optimize their new processes, methodologies, and supply chain network. (Changes don’t reach full efficiency overnight, and sometimes it is two or three years before you can optimize a supply chain network due to existing contracts, infrastructure, etc.)

Why are costs (initially) going up for many companies?

  • wages: many of the “friendly” countries are more economically mature, or advantaged, with a higher standard of living buffered up by higher wages / better social systems
  • utility charges: in “friendly” countries that are using newer, cleaner, sources of energy or limiting energy production from burning (coal, oil, natural gas) have energy costs that are often higher as the initial infrastructure investment has not been amortized, water costs could be higher if more processing inbound or outbound is required, and so on
  • production overhead: chances are that the factories are newer, required a large investment that isn’t anywhere close to being paid off yet by the owner, and you’re paying a portion of the large interest payment to the investors/banks as part of the overhead

However, it’s important to note that:

  • productivity: will go up when you move to a locale where the workforce is more educated and skilled and is better able to employ automation and modern practices, and thus gets more efficient over time, countering the initial wage increase
  • energy costs: will reduce over time as a solar farm or wind farm can produce renewable energy for decades, with the initial investment often being paid back within one third to one quarter of that time; as a result, energy prices should remain flat(ter) over time than in the locales where they are still burning dwindling fossil fuels (which rise every year in cost) and have not yet invested in renewables
  • overhead: will decrease once the investments are paid back (and the interest payments are gone), which means it can stay flat as other production related costs rise (compared to older plants which will eventually reach a point where the revitalization investment becomes significant on a regular basis)

In addition to:

  • logistics costs: will reduce when you choose a friendly country closer to your target markets (since most freight is ocean freight on fossil fuel burning cargo ships)
  • disruption costs: will reduce as less risk translates into less (costly) disruptions over time

So while costs may go up a bit at first, at least relatively speaking, they will go down over time, especially as network and process optimizations are introduced and obtained from experience with the new network, suppliers, and technologies.

Don’t Abuse Lean and Mean — The Four Horsemen of the Shipocalypse Don’t Need Any Help!

If you are in Procurement or Logistics, you know that the time of cheap, fast, and reliable — which we had for almost two decades, is now long gone and likely to never return. That is because the four horsemen have turned their attention to global trade … specifically, global logistics … and have brought:

  • war: the conflict in the Red Sea, one of the two most important waterways in the world, has made most transport almost impossible
  • famine: the droughts in Panama, the other of the two most important waterways in the world, have reduced its capacity by at least 1/3 for at least 1/3 of the year
  • pestilence: plague has returned, taking down the necessary workers (and closing the necessary ports) with it
  • death: corporate greed and union response have stepped in here to bring certain death to global supply chains if things don’t change:
    • oil prices: the more they go up, the more unaffordable our dirty ocean freight becomes
    • limited capacity: greedy corporations scrapped ships during the pandemic for insurance claims, sometime ships that hadn’t even made a single voyage … and now that they’ve learned they can raise prices up to 10X pre-pandemic prices for a single container during peak season, and the richer (luxury good) companies will still pay the rates, they have no incentive to bring capacity back
    • union demands: inflation has been rampant, workers have been impacted, and they want their pre-pandemic buying power … and, as I’ve noted before, labour unrest and strikes is now one of the biggest risks in your global supply chain

As a result, the last thing you want to do is help the horsemen bring your supply chain to a a halt, but that’s exactly what you keep doing day in and day out as you keep pursuing, and applying, lean, mean, and JIT (just-in-time) where it doesn’t belong.

As noted by the author of this recent LinkedIn article on how you have (less than) two weeks to stave off supply chain chaos, we’re at the point where a one day stop in any part of the supply chain turns into one week to recover from, a one week stop in any part of the supply chain turns into one month to recover from, and a one month stop in any part of the supply chain totally f*cks us for a year! (Since the effects are not linear but exponential!) And it’s all your fault.

Lean and mean was supposed to be about efficiency in manufacturing and lack of waste, not slashing inventory to dangerous levels, not slashing capacity to dangerous levels, and was certainly NOT meant to be used by idiot MBAs (which stands for Master of Business Annihilation) with no concept of what the corporation does running global corporations off of spreadsheets alone!

So stop applying it to inventory and capacity! Thank you.

There are Perks and Pitfalls of Friend-Shoring — But The Answer is Near-shoring!

On Tuesday, when we told you the tariff tax is coming and there’s nothing you can do about it, we told you the long-term solution is near-shoring, and while others will tell you that the short-term answer is friend-shoring, we want to make it clear that it is NOT.

As a result of recent logistics disruptions, geopolitics, and global disasters, and all of the supply disruptions that have resulted, a lot of global companies are starting to pull back on global outsourcing and extended supply chains, at least where they seem to have options.

Apparently a number of these organizations are considering Friendshoring, as per yet another article on the subject, with a recent example being the perks and pitfalls of friendshoring in EP&T.

According to this article this strategic shift is buzzing among industry leaders and policymakers. Why, I’m not sure.

The article has the following benefits right:

  • enhanced security and trust as partners tend to trust each other and keep each other safe
  • improved compliance and standards as friends generally work to serve the same markets and are more aware of the standards and regulatory requirements that need to be met for all to benefit

And has the following challenge mostly right:

  • increased costs as most “friends” are in first world countries with higher labour costs, higher utility and operating costs, stricter environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. so costs are generally a bit higher up front (at first)

But here’s what the article overlooks:

  • better quality since these friends usually operate at higher standards with better tech which typically translates into
  • more reliability and longevity which generally translates into
  • reduced returns and warranty costs as customers will generally discard or move on from the product before it breaks
  • higher sales prices as customers will pay more for quality

And here’s what the article really overlooks.

It’s NOT friendshoring, it’s nearshoring!

Preferably somewhere you can get to on land, or from a nearby port. For North America, that means we should primarily be outsourcing from Central America (since we can get our stuff on trucks if ocean freighter availability is low) and, if we can’t get it there, from South America — since we can get it from a ship that sails up and down the coast (and doesn’t have to pass through a canal that has limited capacity due to drought or is unsafe due to terrorist presence). NOT from China, unless it is a raw material we can’t get elsewhere.

The nearer the source, and the less countries and distance the materials or products have to pass through, the less chance for disruption.

Moreover, it’s NOT the friends you have, it’s the friends you need, which may not be one in the same.

For example, a company in the UK might be your “friend”, but the UK is expensive, crossing the Atlantic is expensive and risky at certain times of the year, and you might be able to invest in a supplier in Mexico to get the same product! Moreover, if you invest in a company to help them grow, they are much more likely to stay your friend than a company who is only your friend because they think you are locked in to them.

Plus, if you choose, and invest in, up and coming / new suppliers, you can help them with their processes, new technology selections and plant upgrades, and even sub-tier supplier and material selection. This can be more helpful to you than an established supplier locked into their ways and last-generation technology and production lines they paid too much for.

Some of your “friends” will be the right “friends”, some won’t. Analyze them all and make sure they fit all of your requirements: near, quality, reliability, and potential for future value creation. (Not just future cost reduction after you help them get efficient, but potential sales price increase, value added services, and other factors that might increase the overall profit equation. After all, Procurement is about increasing business value, not just about securing supply and controlling costs.)

Stay close to home, and even home-shore when you can, and you will see fewer disruptions, which should be your goal as supply disruption has been the biggest risk for at least the last 15 years.