Best Buy Experience? Still Not At Best Buy But …

… if you were one of the lucky ones, at least this time you got a few free iPads to give to people in need instead of getting nothing or unexpected free porn (as some people did earlier this year, as chronicled in Best Buy Experience? Not at Best Buy! Part I) or, in some cases, getting completely ignored (as chronicled in Best Buy Experience? Not at Best Buy! Part II).

As chronicled by Mark Rush over on Evan Schuman’s StorefrontBacktalk next year, now Best Buy has an iPad Dilemma. Apparently they shipped at least five iPads to at least two customers who had only ordered one. (See a recent article on iTechPost titled “best buy ships out free ipads accident discounts iphone 5 holiday season 2012” for example.) But at least this time they owned up to the error right away and instead of insisting that the customer ordered five and needs to pay for five, or pay the return and handling fees to return four, they decided to take advantage of the holiday season and find a little holiday spirit. They told the customers to “keep the additional iPads and give them to people in need” and get some valuable good press that they desperately need, ignoring the fact that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission Q&A stated that federal law required that the consumer could keep the extra iPads and not pay for them, referencing laws intended to punish retailers from shipping items to people who didn’t buy them in an attempt to extort them for payment later.

Now, as noted in the article, Best Buy could probably have gotten the issue to court noting that the customer did order one item, but I would have to think in this case that, given the nature and value of the item ordered, the court would reasonably conclude that an end consumer didn’t want more than one and the company should have appropriate checks and balances in place to appropriately manage such valuable inventory. Thus, it is likely this is a case Best Buy wouldn’t win.

My conclusion? They weren’t being generous and simply making the right decision to circumvent the PR nightmare that would have inevitably resulted had they handled it any other way and they still need to fix their systems. I could be wrong, but Amazon does a lot more shipping and seems to make considerably fewer screw-ups, or at least deals with them better as I haven’t seen nearly as many articles about Amazon screwing up compared to Best Buy in the past year.

Blue and Brown Make Dark Brown

Not Green! Someone over on Supply Chain Digital either needs a refresher course on the visible spectrum, or, if a discussion of electromagnetic radiation is too difficult for them, a kid’s paint set. What am I referring to? This recent article over on Supply Chain digital on how “UPS and USPS Begin Partnership to Reduce Emissions”.

I really like this idea in theory, but in practice, I wonder if it’s really going to reduce emissions or just create a lot of hot air.

Here’s the quandary. If the average UPS and USPS truck is going out half empty, than this is going to reduce the number of trucks on the road, and it’s a good idea. If the average UPS and USPS truck is going out over half fill, USPS will now need two trucks and the emissions will just be shifted from UPS to USPS. The other issue is that the packages have to get from the USPS network to the UPS network. How closely are the networks synced? Not only does a package now have to go through location B to get to C from location A, which means that UPS won’t be able to retire may trucks (as it still has to get the packages to USPS), but if A to B to C is twice as long as A to C, and this is the case for a majority of packages, are emissions really saved?

Also, with respect to the second part of the partnership, will the USPS be able to redesign its network to efficiently take advantage of UPS’ efficient global distribution capabilities? If USPS can, this will be great because UPS is much more efficiently structured to get a package to the right country given its focus. But if USPS can’t, it’s more hot air.

And all hot air does is scorch the earth, and turn it dark brown.

I hope for the best, but what’s the real incentive for these two companies to cooperate to the level necessary to really make a difference?

2013 Supply Management Predictions (Evil Style)

It’s been six (6) years, six (6) months, and six (6) days since SI published it’s first post. Religiously speaking, I believe that means SI should be evil today. As a blog, this presents SI with a bit of a conundrum. How can a blog be evil? A few years ago, SI would not have been able to answer this, but today, thanks to Twitter, it can. A blog can be evil by publishing its entire post to Twitter, and forcing you to read it in 140 character increments. Quite evil in fact. So, if you want to read the rest of today’s post, and find out two things that will tank your Supply Management Organization in 2013 if you’re not ready, you’ll have to follow @sourcingdoctor on Twitter! ha, hA, HA, HA, HA!

I Got Your Mail. And I Don’t Even Need A Side-Channel Attack.

How? I just used your password. As recently reported by CNN.com, SplashData just released its “Worst Passwords” list compiled from common passwords posted by hackers. I can’t believe how stupid the top 25 are. It’s insane. I don’t even need a brute-force dictionary to have a good chance of breaking into a random account if this is what still passes for a password these days! If you have one of these, you might want to consider changing it. But if you’re going to use a dictionary word, at least mis-spell it, or it won’t be much harder for a hacker with a brute-force dictionary-based script and a bit of patience.

1. password

2, 123456

3. 12345678

4. abc123

5. qwerty

6. monkey

7. letmein

8. dragon

9. 111111

10. baseball

11. iloveyou

12. trustno1

13. 1234567

14. sunshine

15. master

16. 123123

17. welcome

18. shadow

19. ashley

20. football

21. jesus

22. michael

23. ninja

24. mustang

25. password1

Can We Make EOQ Relevant Again?

This summer, Supply & Demand Executive published an article on how to make EOQ relevant again. Going through the recent archives, it got my attention because it is simultaneously a metric that should have never lost relevance and a metric that loses relevance when too much emphasis is placed on JIT or avoiding stock-outs (at all costs).

EOQ, short for Economic Order Quantity, is an old-school metric whose function is to identify the optimum order size that has the lowest cost. Defined as the square root(2UA/IC), where:

  • U is the (annual) usage,
  • A is the acquisition cost per order,
  • I is the inventory carrying rate, and
  • C is the cost per item

if demand is relatively constant, or at least known and predictable, the item is purchased in lots or batches, and the order preparation and inventory carrying costs are constant and known, then the formula tells you how much to order (and, as a result, how often to order) to minimize your overall order cost.

But, as the article points out, even assuming you can mesh this with your JIT production schedule (timing the orders so that you don’t carry too much inventory but still keep production running smoothly), these are not all of the costs associated with an order. Other costs include:

  • purchase order processing cost (which should be included in acquisition cost)
  • a true ICC rate (and not the holding cost computed as the extra cost of money invested in stock) that takes into account opportunity costs (which should be included in I)
  • taxes paid on inventory (which can be substantial and why many auto dealers, for example, have year end clear-outs) (which should also be included in I)
  • stock quantity shrinkage loss due to handling, pilferage, and theft (which should also be included in I)
  • stock risk losses due to product obsolescence, deterioration or shelf life expiration (which should be factored into C)

Thus, in order to use EOQ, you need to first insure that all of these costs can be accounted for. Then, as per the article, you need to insure that:

  • the product(s) are offered at a single price,
  • demand is predictable,
  • prices will not change (significantly) during the time the order is in stock,
  • stock will not exceed the shelf-life,
  • a single order can be placed, and
  • freight is included in the purchase price, or can be factored in.

In this situation, if the additional costs identified above are factored in, EOQ is still very relevant and should be used. However, if multiple assumptions are violated, EOQ may not be appropriate, and, more specifically, if demand is slow, or very unpredictable, then JIT is the preferred method.

And, furthermore, if you

  • establish minimum quantities to reflect minimum purchase volumes,
  • set a maximum ceiling stock for difficult, bulky, or large items, and
  • base adjustments on multiples of packaged lots

then you may find that EOQ is still right for you.