Category Archives: Risk Management

Who sets supply chain standards?

After hearing about the recent NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Interagency Report (7622) on 10 Practices to Secure the Supply Chain, it got me wondering as to who should set the standards. Supply Chains are global, so it shouldn’t be a single government agency, even if it’s a standards agency. While supply chains run on technology — it’s only one of the three corners of the supply chain triangle, with the other two being talent and transition (management).

But, of course, supply chain standards are probably not high on the WTO (World Trade Organization) agenda — as the primary purpose is to supervise and liberalize international trade — keeping the flow smooth. Trade agreements take priority over standards. Someone has to bite the bullet and take the challenge. But we need more than high-level practice definitions. These are the 10 perspective practices that the NIST recommends:

  1. Uniquely identify supply chain elements, processes and actors
  2. Limit access and exposure within the supply chain
  3. Create and maintain the provenance of elements, processes, tools and data
  4. Share information within strict limits
  5. Perform supply chain risk management awareness and training
  6. Use defensive design for systems, elements and processes
  7. Perform continuous integrator review
  8. Strengthen delivery mechanisms
  9. Assure sustainment activities and processes
  10. Manage disposal and final disposition activities throughout the system or element life cycle

Taken one by one:

  1. obvious, no help here
  2. also obvious, no help here either
  3. you should be doing that already to conform to the plethora of trade and security regulations you’re already subject to
  4. given the lack of openness in most supply chains between trading partners, this is probably already happening
  5. this is good advice — it’s common knowledge, but when it comes to training, no one is listening
  6. here’s where it gets good — I don’t think defensive design is part of supply chain design today and it’s a great approach to keep things in perspective
  7. that’s just good risk management
  8. that’s just part of continuous supply chain improvement
  9. this is good advice too — while the sustainability message should also be common knowledge, there’s not enough action on this front either
  10. this is great advice — everyone focusses on the acquisition, but often neglects that, at some point, everything created has to be destroyed; everything acquired has to be disposed of

In summary, I give it a 4 out of 10. So, what would be good recommendations? We’ll take that up in a later post. But for now, do you have any?

A Digital Transformation Requires At Least Five Critical Factors, Not Three!

A recent article over on Chief Executive on Digital Transformation that asked “[If] CEOs [are] ready for the Challenge?” caught my attention. And it kept it when it said less than 20% of the companies surveyed are truly reshaping their businesses for digital and many are only partially fulfilling their potential because, as a technophile, I know this to be all too true.

But I screamed NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO with @rantinggirl when I read that you need three factors in place — top-down vision, clear governance and investment — to deliver a true transformation. While these factors are a necessary condition, they are not a sufficient condition, and if all you have is vision, a governance model, and the willingness to invest current resources into the problem, then you should pack it in now as your days as an organization are numbered.

You see, a successful digital transformation requires at least the following Five Critical Factors:

  1. Top-Down Vision
    that emanates from, is communicated by, and is embraced by the top
  2. Clear Governance
    that consistently communicates and enforces the vision, ensures the allocated resources are directed towards the effort, and that keeps the vision on track when fires threaten to cloud the business with smoke or people want to return to the old ways
  3. Investment
    in resources and dollars, as money will need to be spent requiring the right infrastructure
  4. Technologically Adept Talent
    since going digital requires being digital
  5. Transition Commitment
    since there will always be those that fight the transformation and, more importantly, since some of these resources may not be able, or willing, to adopt to the new way of doing business and have to be let go

Anything less is like skydiving without a properly packed parachute. You had a clear vision of jumping out of the plane, you invested in the plane, and you convinced the pilot to take off, but you forgot about the nature of the landing and that if the chute doesn’t properly deploy, you’ll be hitting the ground at 195 km/h (or 122 mph) — without much chance of survival. Mr. Boole may have survived, but chances are you’ll end up like the skydivers on CSI.

As the article points out, the transformation journey is full of roadblocks, including organizational skill gaps, culture, and legacy IT (that is more antisocial than your average arrogant PhD, and I should know).

If You Are Using a 3PL, Should You Focus on Outcome-Based Pricing?

Yesterday we discussed whether or not you should hedge your transportation costs, given this recent article in Canadian Transportation & Logistics (CTL) that found “global shipping lines grapple with plunging rates, overcapacity, and faltering recover”. Today we discuss another recent Canadian Transportation & Logistics article on “why it pays to focus on outcomes rather than transactions in procuring supply chain services”.

While an outcome-based focus is starting to take hold in some leading Supply Management organizations in their strategic sourcing processes, it’s often focussed on more traditional services where outcomes are easily defined and well understood by the organization. For example, procurement back-office functions where it’s all about throughput improvement (in terms of invoices processed), customer service (where it’s all about trouble-ticket resolution), and preventative maintenance (where it’s all about reducing downtime).

But back-office, customer service, and system up-time are not the only things that can be measured as outcomes. So can 3PL. As per the CTL on global shipping challenges, only 56% of containers delivered on time globally. Fifty-six percent! For those of you going for the perfect order, that’s 44% of your orders that rely on globally sourced products that won’t be perfect as of day one! (That’s why Maersk launched its Daily Maersk service in late October of 2011 which, with daily cut-off and built-in safety margins, allows it to guarantee virtually total reliability between select ports in Asia and Europe.)

Of course, this will require a shift in mindset in both buyers and 3PLs, but if both parties are willing to share greater risks, both parties could reap greater rewards. Current trends seem to indicate that. For example, by focussing on outcomes, Microsoft saved $30 Million by outsourcing its procure-to-pay operation to Accenture One, which doubled profit by focussing on value add activities. And Proctor & Gamble saved $1 Million in the first year of outsourcing $70 Million of facility management to Jones Lang LaSalle.

When the 3PL focusses on process and productivity improvement, and not price reduction, the efficiencies that fall out will most likely lead to cost reductions in the long term. For example, just getting the on-time delivery rate to 94% from 56% will likely decrease expediting costs 86%. And reducing “empty miles” will reduce costs (and likely speed up delivery time-frames as well, shortening lead times).

Should You Hedge Your Transportation Costs?

It’s a tough question, and one that you need to answer sooner rather than later. If you read this recent article on how “global shipping lines grapple with plunging rates, overcapacity, and faltering recover”, you realize that the global shipping industry is likely in for a very shaky ride over the next few years given the unpredictable demand, the strong likelihood of consolidation, and the big bets some major shippers are making that could intensify the current overcapacity problem.

The following tidbits of information in particular are worrisome:

  • GDP growth forecasts for Canada in 2012 have recently been revised downwards by various analysts to just above 2%
    Canada, which has done quite well in weathering the global economic storm (through better bank regulation, smarter risk aversion, and a focus on natural resources) is barely going to grow. Imagine how the Eurozone and the USA are going to fare in 2012.
  • China growth, while in the high single digits, is slowing
    When GDP growth in the country that houses one-sixth of the world’s population and that is still on track replace the USA as the dominant economic superpower in under fifteen (15) years is slowing, what hope does the rest of the world have for a quick recovery?
  • The dollar still drives decisions. Green is of secondary importance.
    With little incentive to look at new technologies, there is little incentive to look at sustainable solutions that could be more cost effective in the long run. (Such as more efficient engines, on-board solar and wind power, etc.)
  • Maersk, which ordered 10 Triple E vessels capable of carrying 18,000 TEUs in February 2011, ordered 10 more mega-vessels that will cost US $190 Million in late June.
    All of these vessels are bigger than the 15,000 TEU Emma Maersk, which will remain the largest container ship on the high seas until 2013 when the new ships are deployed. But where is the volume going to come from to fill them?
  • Maersk is betting that Asia-Europe trade will increase by 5% to 8% annually over the next four years.
    China’s GDP growth is around 9% and falling. And not all of that is due to trade. The Eurozone is dealing with one financial crisis after another, and no other country in Asia is going to keep up with China.
  • Box freight rates on the Far East-Europe spot market have plunged below zero after stripping out bunker surcharges. Worse, the rates will continue dropping as the big carriers engage in a “destructive” rate war.
    Price wars always have casualties.
  • Net rates are now lower than during the darkest period of the 2009 container slump.
    Rates have no where to go but up (although they may not start rising until we have a few price war casualties).
  • Alphaliner estimates that idle container ship tonnage will climb above 500,000 TEUs by the end of December.
    To put this in perspective, that’s 19.25 Million m3 of idle cargo space which could hold approximately 33.258 Trillion iPad 2’s in the box, if Foxconn could produce them all. (This is 4.75 iPad 2’s for everyone on the planet.)

Put all this together, and you see that:

  • (Some) carriers are going to go out of business.
    It could be yours!
  • Shipping lanes are going to close.
    Carriers will have to drop low volume lanes and consolidate volumes to keep costs down and stay in business.
  • Rates are going to go up.
    As those carriers that don’t go out of business will have no choice to raise rates if they stay in business, even with lane consolidation and elimination of discretionary and low-volume ports.

If you don’t have a ocean freight backup strategy, it’s time to get one, and if a delay could cause you a significant loss or increase in rates as you scramble to divert cargo to a higher cost carrier, it might be time to hedge your bets. the doctor may not be an expert in ocean freight, but this crystal ball is not very hard to read.

Avoiding the 88 Million Dollar Fine

In our last post, we pointed out how the likelihood of a multi-million dollar fine, which could range from the $3.1 Million recently paid by Maersk to the $88.3 Million recently paid by JP Morgan, is increasing almost daily for an average mid-size multi-national that is importing and exporting regularly as more sanctions, specially designated nationals (SDN), and denied parties are being added to the OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) and BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security) lists.

The problem is that with dozens of major country sanctions in the Federal Register; hundreds of individual sanctions against countries for specified commodities, services, or financial transactions; and thousands of names on the SDN, denied persons, and denied entities list, it is impossible to keep on track of the situation manually — even if you have a team of clerks and lawyers reading around the clock. You need an automated solution. But not any solution will do.

Why? You can’t just do a(n) exact name match. First of all, the individual doing data entry could make a typo — and all of a sudden instead of AIR CESS HOLDINGS LTD, it’s AIR CHESS HOLDINGS LTD, and you’re shipping to a denied national in the UAE. Oops! Secondly, the individual placing the order could slightly alter his or her (company) name so that the local delivery person still knows the shipment is for him or her (since no illiterate American is going to spell Abdelwadoud Abou Mossaab correctly and Abdelwadod Abou Mosab is the best you can hope for) but so that it doesn’t match on a name search. You also have to check for close (mis)spellings.

But this isn’t enough. If the spelling is off enough, it will still be missed. You also have to check by address. If the address is an exact match and the name could be a match, then it’s probably a denied party. But even address isn’t enough. A smart denied party that is a corporate entity will just open a new PO Box and abbreviate their name enough so that a simple match algorithm will fail. However, you could argue that you can combat this with a greater than 80% success rate with some good AI and AR (automated reasoning) and then argue that if you do screw up once, you could have the fine minimized by working with the OFAC and/or BIS and demonstrating due diligence, but even this is not enough.

First of all, if the company knows it is on a denied party list and wants to get product from the US bad enough, and it is a “holding company”, or has a parent “holding company”, the first thing it’s going to do if it’s smart is open a new subsidiary or sister company at a new address with a new Director and then approach a new mid-sized supplier who will be thrilled at the opportunity to get new business and who will likely cease checking once there are no partial matches on the sanctions or denied parties lists. And then the minute the Federal Government marks the company as associated with denied (terrorist) entity, you pop up as supplying contraband and, to be blunt, you’re in boiling water.

Secondly, it might not be you that violates the sanction, but one of your first tier suppliers who violates it on your behalf, which, depending on what sanction is violated, could be just as bad. For example, your logistics carrier could decide to load perfectly fine Cargo destined to sanction-free Egypt (at least where your cargo is concerned), which is ok, but then stop at a Canadian port to pick up cargo for Saudi Arabia, and then, before it drops your cargo off in Egypt, stops at a Saudi port where your cargo is contraband under export requirements. Then, because of bad record keeping, it can’t prove that none of your cargo was off-loaded in Saudi Arabia, and that all of the cargo made it to Egypt, and, again, you are in hot water.

In other words, a first generation Trade Data Management Solution that automatically scans the sanctions and denied party lists is not enough. It also has to keep track of corporate relationships and verify that the company isn’t a shell or entity acting on behalf of a denied company or entity, and that it’s suppliers and services providers are not violating import and export restrictions on its behalf.

I’ve seen solutions that do a great job of applying AI and advanced analysis to detect denied parties on the lists that would not be spotted manually, and I’ve seen solutions that do a great job of providing visibility into first, and even second tier, supply chain in terms of what product is where, when, and where it’s going to go — but I haven’t seen a solution that does both superbly. To be honest, it’s been over a year since I have seen the best companies like Integration Point, TradeCard, CDC Tradebeam, QuestaWeb, and EcoVadis have to offer with respect to denied party / sanction screening, so I am issuing a challenge to all Global Trade Management (GTM) and SCV (Supply Chain Visibility) Providers. Show me a solution that can prevent OFAC and BIS violations and fines 100% when used properly, and I’ll give you a 3-part series.