Category Archives: Risk Management

Another Headline From the Land of D’OH: Going Global Means Expecting the Unexpected

I have to say that I never expected our next headline from the land of D’oh! to come from Knowledge@Wharton, but I guess that this is just more proof that the unexpected can happen when you go global! But seriously, who didn’t know this? It’s 2010, and everyone knows that every country is different. Different cultures. Different political systems. Different goals. And no matter how much you think you know about another culture or country from reading a book or taking a course, there’s always going to be something you don’t know. After all, there’s lots about your own country you don’t know. For example, for those of you in the US, how many titles in the US code and which ones would impact you if you changed your product line?

And now that national security is becoming a prominent issue in many countries, it only stands to reason that the complexity of doing international business is only going to increase, and that the unexpected is going to become more common. This is especially true in information technology, as information can have political ramifications, and telecommunications, which transmit information, as these are both high-growth industries and there’s a lot of money at stake.

Furthermore, when companies offer products or services that can be used for, or to compromise, national security, there’s a chance there’s a good chance that it can put them in conflict with local governments. So what should they do? According to the article, these companies should put crisis management in place. Because a crisis is almost as inevitable as a supply chain disruption, and we all know that the black swan is coming.

Share This on Linked In

DnB’s Mobile Capability is Good But …

… it’s no substitute for the real thing.

There’s been a lot of hype recently about Dunn & Bradstreet’s new Supplier Risk Manager Mobile functionality, and a lot of coverage on the blogs. I’m not going to say it’s undeserved, as it is one of the first enterprise applications in the supply chain space to make an effort to embrace mobile computing, but I’m not going to hype it either.

The reality is that while D&B are advertising three capabilities, there is really only one real use for the offering (and I’m pleased to say that, when grilled, they readily admitted it), which is:

determining whether or not an alert needs to be acted on now, or later.

A properly configured Supplier Risk Management System will be configured to send out alerts anytime something might need to be looked at — as the system will be ignored otherwise. When an alert is sent out, the first thing that a recipient needs to do is determine how serious the alert is and whether or not more research needs to be done and/or an action needs to be taken. With the mobile platform, that works on ‘Berries, ‘Droids, and iPhones, a risk manager can drill into the alert and see why it was issued (reduced credit score, late shipments, plant shutdown, etc.) and then drill into the supplier profile to determine what effect the reason for the alert could have on the supplier and/or the relationship. The manager can then determine if the alert needs to be followed-up on or not, and if the follow-up (whether additional research, a call, or another action) has to happen now or later. This is useful if the manager is on the road and doesn’t have easy access to the regular application or if the manager is just enjoying personal time and doesn’t want to drop everything to run to the [home] office to figure out whether or not something needs to be done — which could be the situation if the alert is for a major supplier of critical inventory.

The mobile app also allows you to search for suppliers and look up (random) company profiles, but let’s face it, that’s not something you’re going to be doing when you’re on the road or on personal time — especially when it’s so much easier on the full application. It’s neat, but you’re only going to be doing it when conduction sourcing events back at the [home/hotel] office. In short, it’s good, but don’t place unreasonable expectations on it, or they’ll be dashed.

Should Companies Really Be Building Their Own Credit Scoring Capabilities?

As per a recent article in Market Watch on “supply chain risk companies must develop credit scoring capabilities to predict supplier defaults says oliver wyman report”, a new report issued by Oliver Wyman, in collaboration with the Association for Financial Professionals, suggests that companies must develop their own credit scoring capabilities to prevent supplier defaults from jeopardizing their supply chains. In “The New Weakest Link in Your Supply Chain: Supplier Credit”, they say that companies can no longer rely solely on credit ratings from credit rating agencies to evaluate their suppliers’ financial vulnerabilities.

While I agree that credit scores are not enough, because it can be a few months before a credit score reflects a supplier with failing financial health as it will typically take a few months of missed payments before the credit score accurately reflects the supplier’s financial health, I don’t think that developing sophisticated scoring is the answer. First of all, your average company is not going to have the expertise to even begin such an exercise. Secondly, the whole point is to detect when a supplier might be in financial distress, not score them.

Would not careful monitoring of shipments, payments, and quality be enough? Most suppliers who are in distress are going to either be late with payments, late with shipments, or cutting corners in production, leading to a drastic decline in quality. If you can catch this behaviour early, then you can tell when a supplier might be distressed and start to make back-up plans, all without sophisticated credit scoring. And that’s what’s important. Not how much complexity you can throw at the problem.

Share This on Linked In

Want to Kill Quality, Outsource!

It’s probably getting cliche by now, but it’s often true. And I enjoyed this recent article on how “companies find outsourcing can backfire as quality, customer service suffer” in the Journal Sentinel Online, especially when it said that outsourcing isn’t always the best solution and, in some cases, it’s laden with problems and disappointments.

According to the article, a new business survey from the ASQ (American Society for Quality), found that 55% of companies surveyed were substantially dissatisfied with their outsource provider in the areas of innovation and making process improvements. A mere 34% said outsourcing provided a good value and only 41% said outsourcing met performance metrics.

While outsourcing can be a quick fix to lower costs, in the long run it can backfire — sometimes badly. Communication problems, poor customer service, slow delivery times, and quality control are just some of the pitfalls. And the reality is that when quality, the cost of freight, delivery times and other factors are considered, sometimes it’s cost-neutral or cheaper to make products yourself, in U.S. factories, rather than outsource them overseas.

Share This on Linked In

Don’t Exclude Natural Disasters from Continuity Planning

Even though the probability of certain events may only be once every one hundred years, the reality is that they’re going to happen eventually, and now that your supply chain is global, the chances of being affected by a natural disaster, even half a world away, are many times greater than they were even twenty (20) or thirty (30) years ago. Plus, as per this recent article over on the ISM site on being “in the eye of natural disasters”, the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), managed by the Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), recorded 3,770 natural disasters worldwide recorded between 2000 and 2009 with an economic impact of over $863 Billion. In other words, on average, there are 377 natural disasters a year costing the supply chain 229 Million each — more than enough to bankrupt even your average large company if it is operating on a razor-thin margin and unprepared for the disaster!

You need a plan for major disruptions caused by natural disasters, be they local to your operations or halfway around the world where they are local to your raw material / component / contract manufacturing suppliers. A natural disaster in either location, or anywhere in between along your normal distribution routes, will knock out your supply chain for an indeterminate amount of time. Thus, as suggested by Bernie Hart, an Executive Director of J.P. Morgan, supply management professionals should be assigning weights to specific transactions of components and products in the supply chain and planning appropriately. What-if scenario simulations are imperative for anything with a significant weight, such as high-volume shipments, high-value shipments, customer-critical components or shipments with delivery penalties associated with them. These simulations should include participants throughout the supply chain to ensure a uniform understanding of what is critical for the business, where the key process triggers are and how suppliers will meet your commitments in the event of a mass-scale interruption.

You need to be planning proactively and putting plans in place for contingencies when your operations get knocked out by a natural disaster — especially considering disasters of all types (hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc.) seem to be increasing in recent years. You don’t necessarily have to spend money preparing for execution until the need arises, but you have to spend money creating and fleshing out the plans that will allow you to act fast when a disruption does occur. And, as the article suggests, you should invest in the appropriate analysis technologies to help you identify the biggest risks upon which your contingency plans should focus.

The article is very well written and I would suggest you check it out — it also has some good ideas for contingency plan components. If you are unsure where to start, consider bringing in some outside help who are experts at continuity and disaster recovery planning who can bring with them additional benefits. After all, consultants are cheap.

Share This on Linked In