Monthly Archives: July 2011

Logistics Improves on Both Sides of the Atlantic

West of the Atlantic, there are two big logistics bottlenecks. One is the US border with Canada (where documentary requirements make in-transit goods a cumbersome process). The other is the US border with Mexico, where there have been long standing conflicts over cross-border trucking. East of the Atlantic, you have EU security programs that are not compatible with US programs, and also make for bottlenecks.

In the last few weeks, progress has been made on two of the three big bottlenecks as the US reaches agreement with Mexico on cross-border trucking and agrees to mutual supply chain recognition with the EU (jocsailings.com).

As per the article in Logistics Management, on Wednesday, July 6, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Mexico’s Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes Dionisio Arturo Pèrez-Jàcome Friscione signed documents to resolve the long standing conflicts between the trucking industries of the two countries that resulted from the elimination of the pilot program for cross-border trucking in 2009 as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act. (In response to the act, the Mexican government stated it would place tariffs on roughly 90 American agricultural and manufactured exports as payback. The tariffs amounted to $2.4 Billion of American goods.)

The agreement, focussed on a safety-first program, will lift these tariffs and provide opportunities to increase Mexico-bound US exports and create job opportunities. Furthermore, Mexico will provide recriprocal authority for US carriers to engage in cross-border long-haul operations in that country.

In addition, as per this article in JOC Sailings, the US and EU plan to implement mutual recognition of their supply chain security programs by the end of October. Specifically, mutual recognition between CBP’s C-TPAT and EU’s AEO program will occur, as per the joint statement between the European Commission and the US Department of Homeland Security. Once this is achieved, cargo will flow more smoothly between the US and the EU.

Collaboration: Three Views from the Harvard Business Review, Part I

Recently, the Harvard Business Review ran a special series of articles and posts on “Making Collaboration Work”. Some of these articles were quite insightful and a good read for any Supply Management professional looking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of her supply chain. In this two part series, we are going to address the insights from three recent HBR posts that capture some key insights.

In “collaborate to grow the pie, not just split it”, the authors tell us that far too many retailers and manufacturers opt for pie-splitting instead of collaborating to come up with pie-growing strategies and, as a result, the majority of money spent each year on trade promotion just shifts share from one retailer to another or one manufacturer to another. This results in short-term, unsustainable results where companies are merely “renting share” and destroying long-term industry profitability for everyone involved.

As support for their argument, they reference a recent Neilsen Company macro study analyzing trade promotion across 30 grocery categories which found that only 13% of trade dollars actually result in category growth while 15% result in brand switching, 17% result in store switching, and a whopping 55% just results in subsidized volume (where no new consumers or incremental units are purchased). In this last case, customers who would have purchased anyway get a discount while corporate profits are gutted. And while a manufacturer or retailer might think that consumers only want lower prices, a recent analysis across dozens of categories by the Cambridge Group found that only 10% to 30% of households are truly price sensitive and the rest (who make up the majority) want new benefits and innovation and are willing to pay for them.

Thus, manufacturers and retailers need to collaborate, upfront, on innovation strategies with the consumer in mind and grow the pie. If they do, they can actually increase market share, either by creating a new market (because the product is the first to sail a blue ocean) or by robbing share from a different market. Jimmy Dean is an example of the latter. By expanding its frame of reference beyond just breakfast sausage into convenient breakfast meals centered around sausages, it grew the overall category 25%, drove 2/3rds of the growth, and tripled its frozen breakfast sales. Manufacturers and retailers both won by stealing sales that would have likely gone to fast food establishments instead.

In Part II, we will discuss two more HBR posts that address the inherent value of collaboration.

Three Things Supply Management Should Know About Real Estate

A recent article over on Chief Executive that outlined six questions a CEO needs to ask the Director of Real Estate is a must read for Supply Management. In many companies, real estate flies below the radar, but often accounts for a significant portion of spend, especially when lease terms are factored in. In particular, Supply Management needs to know:

  • What are our aggregate lease obligations?
    In some companies, only payroll, debt, and cost of goods sold obligations will be greater than lease oligations. For some industries, lease costs will be very significant. Consider the example of how a restaurant chain saved 3.38 Million simply by reducing lease costs at only seven locations.
  • What is our key metric for evaluating occupancy costs?
    In some industries, market rate is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the occupancy costs of the location make economic sense for the location based on actual performance. In the retail and restaurant industry, it’s typically the occupancy costs as a percentage of sales that matter — and these should be below a given threshold. For example, when occupancy costs exceed 10% of sales, there is a greater than 50% chance that the location will lose money. However, if occupancy costs are less than 8% of sales, there is less than a 20% chance that the location is losing money.
  • If our rent is too high, what are we doing about it?
    A signed lease should not deter action. In most instances, a landlord has a strong interest in retaining a tenant and the associated rent cheque. A tenant who goes out of business automatically vacates the premises and voids the rent cheque. Even though it can be difficult to engage a landlord in a lease negotiation, there are strategies, and risk averse landlords will often prefer a smaller rent cheque than no rent cheque for an extened period of time.

Beware the Perils of Hyperspecialization

A recent article over on the Harvard Business Review on the age of hyperspecialization said that we are entering an era of hyperspecialization and that it will convey a pulsating, world-spanning flow of knowledge work. Heraliding it as the continuation of Adam’s Smith division of labour, it notes that hyperspecialization reduces costs most dramatically when a company can turn to an expert instead of having to reinvent the wheel and alow the company to achieve a better utilization of their own employees’ time.

However, there can be just as many perils, if not more. The article, which clocks in at seven pages, briefly passes over these five perils:

  • Digital Sweatshops
    In developing economies, enterprising industrialists might use hyperspecialization to create “digital sweatshops” where workers, sets of whom specialize in specific tasks, are exploited for low wages by those who have the means to do so.
  • Astroturfing
    If work is divided into small enough parts, it is possible that a worker may not know what they are working on and may be contributing to something counter to their personal beliefs, or even the law. For example, a mathematician could design a new lottery game or a “greeting card writer” could be creating text for e-mail spam.
  • Electronic Surveillance
    Not only can every aspect of the work be monitored, but it may even reach the point where the work in progress, and the person doing the work, is monitored from start to finish.
  • Dull & Meaningless Work
    Even Adam Smith noted the deleterious results when a person’s work was reduced to “a few very simple operations” back in 1776. If tasks become so refined that they become monotonous, there surely will be ill psychological effects.
  • No Guarantee of Payment
    While spec work is not new, today, most spec work is confined to proposals. In hyperspecialization, workers will actually be doing the work and whether or not they get paid could be at the whim of the company that issues the task.

But misses the most important peril of all:

  • Loss of Vision
    If everyone works on a tiny little piece of a puzzle, over time there will be fewer and fewer people who understand how a puzzle is to be put together. This will seriously stifle innovation as the creativity that results from exploring beyond your horizons diminishes as horizons shrink.