Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Risk Mitigation 2012: Society

In our last post, we covered some potential mitigations for each of the top three technology risks that we identified in our Risk 2011 series. In this post, we are going to cover some potential mitigations for each of the top three societal risks as we continue our series of posts inspired by the World Economic Forum‘s recently released 6th annual Global Risks report, 2011 edition.

03: Economic Disparity

Economic disparity can negatively impact a Supply Management organization in a number of ways. An obvious impact is if the majority of the target population in the geographic regions in which the parent organization operates, and wishes to sell the product, cannot afford the goods or services being offered. In this case, Supply Management will be stressed to lower the price point or risk serious resource cutbacks as the organization faces reduced revenues and operating resources.

This is a hard risk to counter in that an average global multi-national cannot make a significant impact on a national economy. While BNP Paribas has assets that are greater than the GDP all of France (2.68 Trillion compared to France’s 2.56 Trillion GDP), even Walmart only has assets of 181 Billion (which is barely greater than the GDP of Pakistan). Once you get out of the Global 1500, where only 27 companies control more than 1 Trillion of Assets, only 217 companies control more than 100 Billion of assets, only 400 companies control more than 50 Billion of assets, only 904 companies control more than 20 Billion of assets, and only 1437 companies control more than 10 Billion of assets, you see that the ability of an average corporation to make a significant dent on an economy is miniscule.

However, an organization can prepare for it. By following economic trends and consulting leading economists and strategic intelligence agencies, it can create potential scenarios (using scenario planning) of what its target economies are likely to look like next quarter, next year, and in three years time. From this, it can determine what consumer price points it will likely need to meet to hit sales target, and determine what “cost” targets it will need to stay under or, if the cost of production cannot be brought down to the target cost, what value it will need to bring to justify a higher cost point, and, eventually, a higher sales price. And if an organization knows a year in advance of a potential economic decline, it has time to identify new designs, new materials, and new sources of supply in an effort to meet the cost targets that the organization feels are necessary to survive.

02: Food Security

People need to eat. As a result, they need access to safe, secure sources of staple foods at an affordable price point. If they don’t have access to safe, secure sources of staple foods at an affordable price point, they riot — as we have seen in Tunisia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Mogadishu, India, China, and even the UK and Canada last year. When people riot, property gets destroyed — property that could include your delivery trucks, your goods in your warehouses, and even your production plants.

This is another risk that you can’t do much about. You can be a good citizen and not corner the market and artificially drive up prices in the name of greed, but you can’t prevent a greedy, money-grubbing, wall-street-type from being evil and doing the last thing that should be done in a time of need. All you can do is try to predict where riots are most likely to occur if food becomes insecure, which of your assets are most at risk, and take steps to physically protect them. And while SI believes they are a blight on the landscape, electric chain-link fences and, in extreme cases, “armed” guards (tasers and/or other non-lethal choices, please) may be necessary to keep not only your goods, but your people, secure.

01: Water Security

Not only do people need water, but supply chains need water. First of all, supply chains need energy. Energy production requires water. For example, in the USA, about 2 US gallons of water must evaporate to create one kilowatt hour of energy. Steel, which is a component of many goods, requires 62,000 gallons of water for the production of a single ton. Semi-conductor fabrication plants often require up to 2,000 gallons of water per minute.

While it’s hard to maintain food security, as unpredictable and unpreventable natural disasters can wipe out entire crops in a province or state overnight, with a little planning and foresight, water security can be maintained. While most of it is not drinkable, almost 71% of our planet is covered by water. And it’s relatively easy to clean water with modern technology. You can build your own desalination and filtration plants and your own pumping stations and not rely on public utilities, which might already be facing undue strain. You can even make the extra investment to make the water drinkable. Or, if the cost is too high, you can form a cooperative with your manufacturing neighbours that also need water for the purposes of forming your own local water utility. We should never be in need for water.

CBTM #6: An Annual Necessary Evil — The Performance Evaluation


Today’s guest post is from Dalip Raheja of The MPower Group, who declared that Strategic Sourcing is Dead last year and who has returned to give us one of his alternatives.

We all dread the annual performance evaluation process whether we are a Sourcing or Supply Chain employee or a manager. It seems like the same old process year in and year out, used simply to justify compensation increases or not. If the performance evaluation process is part of an integrated talent management program, it doesn’t feel that way. In most cases the measures are tactical in nature and measure activities as opposed to value added outcomes. The measures are seldom tied to the strategic objectives of the company and in many cases drive behavior that is detrimental to achieving those strategic objectives. Your development plan (if there is one) usually lists a variety of training classes you can take individually to improve your individual skill, often ignoring the required organizational competencies that help drive real value for the company. This process should be ongoing and not just annual, but at most companies it is not.

Performance evaluation can be one of the most powerful tools in Competency Based Talent Management (“CBTM”) but it must have a well-defined competency model at its core. It should also be integrated into the other four phases – recruiting, training / development, career management and succession planning. Here is how this should work:

  • Define the role of the Sourcing / Supply Chain organization and the individual job roles in a way that supports the strategic objectives of the company.
  • Determine the competencies (behaviors – both strategic and functional) necessary to be successful in the defined roles. This is your competency model.
  • Use the competency model to:
    • Determine the skills / competencies required when recruiting
    • Determine the skill / competency gaps to drive your training / development program AND the individual development plans as part of performance evaluation
    • Determine the metrics / measures that will be used to drive the performance evaluation process and career management
    • Drive your succession planning

When performance evaluation is supported by defined competencies the process takes on richness for the employees that helps them understand the behaviors (much broader than activities) that are required to be successful currently and those required to move forward in their careers. In addition, competency based performance evaluation helps managers / employees to identify gaps in strategic competencies (e.g. communication, collaboration, teamwork, change leadership) which are less “measureable” but are as, or more, important than functional competencies. If evaluating performance is focused solely on building functional expertise, as opposed to the critical business skills that make a successful business professional, then the organization will have a difficult time moving employees into future leadership roles (career management and succession planning).

Performance evaluation must also focus on demonstrated competency, since having competency that is not being utilized is of no value to the organization. As such, competency based performance evaluation should be structured such that employees are incented and rewarded (compensation $$) for acquiring and demonstrating new competencies and managers should be held accountable to ensure that employees do so. If you think about it, competency building clearly helps the employee build their individual skill set but also helps to build overall organizational competency. Competency based performance evaluation will make it easier to differentiate between high performers and everyone else since the evaluation process will be less about “what you know” and more about “what you do with what you know”.

Lastly, a critical outcome of performance evaluation must be an improvement plan. Here again, the focus should be on identifying gaps in demonstrated competencies and creating strategies to close those gaps. The improvement plan should be mutually agreed upon and managers should be measured on creating opportunities for their employees to acquire and demonstrate new skills.

In summary, a well-defined competency model is a powerful tool when used throughout the talent management lifecycle, particularly performance evaluation. If you don’t have one for your Sourcing / Supply Chain organization, it is a necessary investment in your most critical asset — your people.

If you are interested in getting involved or would like to follow this topic further, here are a series of critical activities coming up:

  • Release of the results of the Executive Forum we just facilitated at the IACCM Global Forum for Contracting & Commercial Excellence on Talent Management.
  • A major research project to not identify the problem one more time but to identify Next Practices to solve the problems.
  • A webinar with IACCM on CBTM.
  • A White Paper to focus on Next Practices in CBTM.

Please contact Crystal Jones at crystalj <at> thempowergroup <dot> com for more information.

Key Takeaways from the UL Product MindSet Study, Part II

A couple of posts ago, we discussed some Interesting Facts and Figures from the UL Product MindSet, a recently released study that quantitatively surveyed 1,195 manufacturers and 1,235 consumers across a range of export and import markets in high-tech, building materials, food, and household chemicals. Then, in our last post, we reviewed four key takeaways from the UL Product MindSet Study. Today we are going to discuss our fifth, and final, takeaway from the study.

MANUFACTURERS NEED TO GET A GRIP ON REALITY!

They need to take off those rose-coloured glasses, put them on the floor, and stomp them to bits. And then they need to take the bits and grind them into dust. The findings illustrate that manufacturers are so far out of touch with reality that it’s downright scary.

First of all, let’s review the standard Gaussian curve. In a standard curve, only 31.8% of the population is one standard deviation from the norm. If we accept that only one standard deviation from the norm is enough to be “ahead of the curve”, then, at most 15.9% of the population can be ahead of the curve (and, similarly, 15.9% of the manufacturers will be behind the curve). However, the report found that an extreme majority of manufacturers believed they were ahead of the curve in safety, reliability, sustainability, and innovation. In short, this means that:

  • 81.1% of manufacturers are out-to-lunch when it comes to product safety
  • 81.1% of manufacturers are day-dreaming when it comes to product reliability
  • 78.1% of manufacturers are high-on-fumes when it comes to sustainability
  • 73.1% of manufacturers don’t-have-a-clue when it comes to innovation

The reality for the majority of manufacturers (68.2%) is that, they are, at best, on the curve. But since the reality is that, if they don’t continue to progress as their supply chains evolve around them, it won’t be long before them are behind the curve, they should just assume they are behind the curve, because 15.9% of them are and 68.2% of them aren’t far from being among that 15.9% without continued improvement efforts. So when they are done grinding those rose-colored, haze-inducing, glasses into dust, they need to get to work!

Furthermore, I see no evidence that the majority of manufacturers understand sustainability. I know it’s hard with all the greenwashing out there, but if one just ignores the hype and uses a little common sense, one can define sustainability as that which sustains operations and the environment at the same time. With this definition, it is easy to see that if an organization is not reducing its environmental footprint and at least maintaining, if not increasing, profitability at the same time, it is not sustainable. So 69% of manufacturers are wrong when they say that environmental products aren’t profitable — because, defined (and designed) right, they are.

And those manufacturers who do understand some of the basics of sustainability obviously don’t understand it’s importance. First of all, it’s not just about sustaining the environment, its about sustaining operations for generations to come. If the resources available are depleted before they can be replenished, there’ll be no materials to make new products. No products, no profit. No profit, no business. It really is that simple. As a result, sustainability should be as important as safety and reliability, not only one-fifth as important. Secondly, with even the majority of consumers in developing countries (such as China where four-fifths of the population would buy a truly green product over a non-green product if proof of claims could be provided), an organization is leaving what is potentially the biggest gold-vein available to it untapped. And finally, if manufacturers as a whole don’t change their understanding and their views, then the lot of them are are being hypocritical! (It is impossible to be ahead of the curve in sustainability, as 94% of manufacturers ridiculously claim to be, while not placing the same importance on sustainability as is placed on safety and reliability.)

Yes this is harsh, but face it, manufacturers are not going to move forward if they continue to believe the all-rainbows-and-roses picture that some other misguided (or is that money-grubbing?) analysts are painting for them. But there is a bright side. Whereas a typical organization would probably pay five, or six, figures for that rainbows-and-roses report, this post is 100% free.
(So, to any manufacturer reading this, stop calling me a downer and get to work! If you do, maybe you’ll be one of the 15.9% that is truly ahead of the curve and reap the rewards that come from earning that status.)

Should You Be The Best?

This sounds like a silly question as it sounds like a question where the answer should always be a resounding yes, but a recent Harvard Business Review blog that said you should stop competing to be the best, which made some good points, makes you think about it.

The blog, which quotes the current thought leadership of Michael Porter, known for his five force analysis, says that “may the best X win” is absolutely the wrong way to think about competition, because it’s practically a guarantee of mediocre performance. Why? First of all, in the vast majority of businesses, there is simply no such thing as “the best”, so this would make the competition-to-be-the-best mindset completely wrong.

This is because many consumers in a market segment have different needs and wants. Some just want functionality. Others want style. Some want goods with average durability. Others want goods that can can take extreme abuse. Some want basic designs. Others want luxury. How can you define best when there are so many market needs?

Business, despite the claims of those who promote Sun Tzu’s Art of War as the ultimate business strategy rulebook, is not war and, in many markets, there can be more than one winner that can thrive. Consider retail. As the blog points out, both WalMart and Target co-exist and thrive and win in their market segment by offering different types of value to their customers.

And when rivals all pursue the “one best way” to compete, they find themselves on a collision course, trapped in a destructive, zero-sum competition that no one can win. Eventually all products and practices become almost indistinguishable, leading to pure price wars, which leads to a deterioration of profitability. This isn’t good for anyone.

The real way to win, according to Porter, is to compete to be unique. Innovate and deliver superior value to your chosen customer segment, not market segment. Make price only one factor in a multi-factor consideration. In doing so, generate positive sum competition and grow the industry — and, in the mean time, earn sustainable returns from the value generated.