Author Archives: thedoctor

Where Is Your Greatest Risk? Not Where You Think It Is.

As per a recent piece by Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and Wei in the current issue of the Harvard Business Review on managing unpredictable supply chain disruptions, there is little correlation between how much a firm spends annually on procurement at a particular site and the impact that the site’s disruption would have on company performance. In reality, the greatest exposures often lie in unlikely places.

Moreover, in many supply chains, these exposures are typically not realized until a low-probability, high-impact event — such as a Hurricane, Earthquake, SARS outbreak, or other mega-disaster — occurs. In these situations, companies find out that they significantly underestimated the impact and are not adequately prepared because their traditional models for evaluating and preparing supply chain risk break down as there is typically a lack of historical data for low probability, infrequently occurring, high-impact events. (Big companies have to deal with poor supplier performance, forecast errors, and transportation breakdowns everyday and traditional risk models can thus adequately predict, and allow the organization to prepare for, these impacts.)

But, as the authors point out, it doesn’t have to be this way. Companies can not only determine the potential magnitude of a disruption without historical data, but can even do so without even knowing what the disruption is. This is because, at the end of the day, the specifics of a disruption don’t really matter — only its impacts do. Be it flood, famine, or fire — you don’t care why your factory isn’t producing — you only care that it isn’t and you have to find an alternate source of supply. And it is possible to model the impact of a disruption at any point of your supply chain without knowing the event that caused it, as an impact is either going to eliminate or cut off supply or production.

To this end if, as the authors indicate, you develop a mathematical model (that can be computerized) that focuses on the impact of potential failures at points along the supply chain (such as the shuttering of a supplier’s factory or the inaccessibility of a distribution center), rather than the cause of the disruption, you can quantify what the financial and operational impact would be if a critical supplier’s facility were out of commission for, say, two weeks — whatever the reason. And that’s what you really care about.

In their paper, the authors describe a sophisticated linear optimization model that integrates predicted Time-To-Recovery (TTR) factors for each node (based upon historical recovery times for the supplier or distributor after a disruption) with Bill-of-Material (BoM), operational measures, financial measures, in-transit inventory levels, on-site inventory levels and demand forecasts for each product. When one node is removed at a time from this model, it can be used to find the supply chain response that would minimize the performance impact of the disruption (such as reducing inventory, shifting production, expediting transportation, or reallocating resources) and then calculate the resulting operational performance impact (PI). The node with the largest PI presents the greatest risk and is assigned the largest risk exposure index (REI) of 1.0 (and all other nodes are indexed relative to this value).

While you may need such a model to determine the full impact of a disruption, you don’t need such a complex model to determine the big hidden risks in your supply chain (which are often the result of sole-source supply arrangements somewhere in the supply chain, possibly at tier two or three). All you really need to do is map the full supply chain for every product you produce down to the raw material supply. Then you can quickly identify sole-source supply, single-factory or single location production, bottle-necks in the distribution network, etc. which lead to hidden risks.

And once you have identified the major risks, and collected the data to appropriately access the potential impacts of a disruption, you can build local models to analyze the extent of the risk exposure. And as you build more and more models, you work your way up to the point where you can begin working on the model described by Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and Wei, incrementally. No big bang modelling approach needed. All you need to do is get underway with a good supply chain visibility solution, such as Resilinc‘s.

MAP-21? Or, More Accurately, RIP-21?

Remember when SI asked if your supply chain was compliant with MAP-21 last fall (on Oct 17 and Oct 18) and pointed out, in bold, section 32918 of the new Commercial Motor Vehicle Act Safety Enhancement Act: Subtitle 1 which states that each broker subject to the requirements of this section shall provide financial security of $75,000 for purposes of this subsection, regardless of the number of branch offices or sales agents of the broker? It did this because it knew this would be a big problem. However, even SI could not have predicted the damage this has caused.

As per a recent article over on Bulk Transporter, 9,800 freight transport brokerages [were] forced to close during December which represented over 46% of the independent broker market! 46%! On December 1, there were 21,080 independent brokers. Today, there are 12,996. So, even though a few new ones opened and a few existing ones eventually managed to raise the money required for the bond (and re-opened), the number of independent brokers is still down almost 40%!

SI agrees that this is indeed a crisis for the independent freight industry and for American consumers and manufacturers, as costs will rise for virtually all goods shipped within the United States. This requirement presents independent brokers with an unreasonable, and in many cases, insurmountable barrier and virtually guarantees that only multi-nationals will be able to participate in what should be a free logistics market. 10K might have been too low, but it should be up to the merchant to decide if the bond put up by the carrier is enough or not. If all you are shipping is low cost consumer purchased goods or packaging material, a 10K to 25K bond is more than enough. If you are shipping smartPhones, you probably want the carrier to put up a 100K bond. If the market really is free, small and mid-sized business should have a choice. But now they don’t.

aPriori, rationi viam ad sumptus! Caput II

In yesterday’s post, we re-introduced you to aPriori, the masters of Enterprise Product Costing that have been working their cost reduction magic for a full decade, taking out mountains of cost before the first part is produced! We noted that, even though it’s been over half a decade, the masters of costing have stayed the course and are still focussed 100% on taking cost out during the design and production phases, where up to 80% of the cost of a product is locked in. They do this through complex process models, built on CAD geometry, that they embed in sophisticated VPEs (Virtual Production Environments) which are populated with accurate cost data for each material, machine, and overhead factor that contributes to the total production cost.

Today we want to highlight the major improvements made in the last five years.

Significantly More Production Process Models!

When SI first reviewed aPriori, their out-of-the-box capabilities were limited to metal-based parts only, and there were only a few dozen process models. Now they can handle virtually any metal and plastics component you can think of and support over two hundred production process models out of the box. In addition, they recently signed some very big name electronics manufacturers and are adding electronics process models to their repertoire, and a few of these will likely be available out-of-the-box this year.

Significantly More Virtual Production Environments!

Now that they have close to 100 customers across the Americas and Europe, that produce their components across the Americas, Europe, Asia, and even Africa, they have up-to-date cost models and accurate VPEs for every major geography out-of-the-box. An engineer, or buyer, can get a rough idea of production cost for any supported production process in any geography before even engaging with a supplier, who can, of course, provide even more accurate cost data specific to their factory.

Support for Every Standard CAD File Format and Just About Every CAD System

The more customers you get, the more CAD systems and file formats you have to work with. At this point in their evolution, aPriori now supports every standard CAD file format and every major CAD system currently in use in the manufacturing sector.

Improved UI

It looks better, responds faster, and integrates the best of CAD and OLAP. The main screen has three sections: the component view, the cost model, and the process model. Each displays the high-level information, but in each the user can drill down as deep as she desires.

Full Excel Export Capability

Not only can the user copy and customize process models and VPEs, update / override any cost, and save any scenario – but they can also export the full scenario and underlying cost model to excel for analysis, review, and distribution.

Powerful Comparison Reports

The user can compare multiple process models, and associated costs, for a part side-by-side, and, if desired, export the full comparison report to Excel.

Roll-Ups and Automatic Process Model Generation and Solution

A user can create a component-based production should-cost model that rolls-up the production should-cost model for each part and the system will automatically cost the full component using the individual part geometries and identified (or default) production processes and, if desired, the lowest cost production process for the entire component.

The improvements save their customers millions every year. For example, the construction equipment manufacturer that saved over 500K annually just on frame and door production also saves over 200K annually on cage rear pivot production. The manufacturer thought that machined casting w/x-Ray was the best way to produce the part, but the aPriori solution was able to determine that a two-step process that first burned the part farm from plate and then machined holed the cavities could reduce the cost from 16.56 to 10.05 on 22K cage pivots per year.

And it’s not just construction equipment manufacturers that save. Thermo King, which produces temperature and climate control products for the transportation industry, analyzed 5.679M in annual spend across 294 sheet metal parts and quickly identified a potential savings of 900K (16%) and realized 400K of this in just 12 days! And a a 6.5B manufacturer of commercial trucks that analyzed 7.7M Euro in spend across 86 sheet metal parts was quickly able to identify that 17 of the 86 parts were “outliers” (and nowhere near expected costs) and through additional analysis was able to identify better production methods that led to a confirmed savings of 1.6M Euro (21%).

It definitely helps to know your expected production costs aPriori!

aPriori, rationi viam ad sumptus! Caput I

When we last covered aPriori in 2007 and 2008 in aPriori and The Sourcing Maniacs 2008 Vendor Tour Part III, they were very focussed on Enterprise Cost Management (ECM) and taking cost out of the design phase. Fast-forward six years later, and nothing has changed, except, of course, the depth, breadth, and usability of their platform — which has grown in leaps and bounds.

Unlike traditional sourcing applications, including advanced spend analysis and decision optimization, that are limited to component cost-based should-cost models, aPriori can also factor in design and production factors to model the full production cycle of the part you are buying (if it’s metal, plastic, or, in some cases, electronics-based) and give you a true understanding of what the part should cost to make. The reality is that the cost of a part is dependent not only on its design, but on the production process employed. As noted in our first post, a supplier that’s always made a certain part a certain way might not realize that new technology or materials would allow them to make that part significantly cheaper if they used a different process. Since the aPriori application instantly and directly interfaces with your CAD program and interrogates the solid model to extract the geometric cost drivers, the aPriori application can automatically determine all the process routings that can be used to make the part, compute the costs associated with each step based upon standard machine, material, and labor costs, and compute the total cost of each part on a per unit basis by factoring non-geometric cost-drivers such as production volumes, the selected supplier or factory set-up selected, and the exact routing and machines used. This is because the aPriori application currently supports over 200 out-of-the-box process models in over 12 major process groups (including, but not limited to, Bar & Tube Fabrication, Casting, Forging, Machining, Plastic Moulding, Powder Metal, Roto & Blow Moulding, Sheet Metal Sheet Plastic, Stock Machining and Rapid Prototyping.

In addition, because the application supports the creation of complete VPEs (Virtual Production Environments) that encapsulate the production processes, a customer can fully model the production and overhead costs associated with each production process supported by a factory in question, including local labour, power, maintenance, and other overhead costs to create a fully accurate should-cost production model, which can be compared to alternate production processes in the factory and other factories modeled with an appropriate VPE. This allows for the true identification of the lowest cost because, as the Sourcing Maniacs documented in their vendor tour post, the COGS is a combination of raw material costs, labor costs, production overhead costs, and margin and these costs not only vary by locale and production process, but in their interaction. For example, just because you identify three ways to make a part and each requires three steps, this doesn’t mean that each process is going to be roughly equal in cost. Not only do different processes require different amounts of manpower or energy (for energy-intensive equipment like lasers, etc.), but reordering the steps can change the manpower or energy required in subsequent steps.

Let’s take, for example, the production of the main Frame sides and door for a piece of heavy machinery construction equipment. An aPriori customer was cutting the entire frame using a laser process. While this seemed efficient, as only one piece of machinery was required, cutting the entire frame and door using a laser cost them 75.54 per frame and door combination, and they required over 14,000 of these combinations a year. That’s over a million dollars on just one part! If, however, as discovered by aPriori who analyzed the geometry and ran it through every possible production process that was available to the manufacturer, they switched to a two-stage production process that involved an initial laser cutting of the frame and door followed by an NC Punch process to punch out the internal cavities, the time required to produce a single frame and door combination decreased by 14 minutes and the cost decreased by 56% to 33.29 (as laser cutting is expensive compared to NC punch).

So what’s new with aPriori? Come back for Part II.

Top 12 Challenges Facing India in the Decades Ahead – Prologue

India is the land of contradictions and, as outlined by Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, it certainly does have An Uncertain Glory ahead of it. It could very well be the 2nd largest economy in the world by 2050, or it could slip out of the top ten and hover three quarters of the way down the top 20 list. Why?

Despite the fact that the Republic of India boasts the 2nd largest population in the world, and the fact that it boasts the largest number of English speakers outside of the United States (Source: Wikipedia) it currently faces more challenges than any emerging country, and certainly any emerging country in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), and on some metrics, ranks worse than some of the poorest countries in Africa!

While it does have a great opportunity before it, it also suffers from some of the greatest misfortunes of any country on the planet, despite the fact that it is, at the same time, probably the greatest example of democracy on the planet. Consisting of 28 states, 7 union territories and 3.288 Million square kilometers, India has 22 languages of official status in the eighth schedule to the Indian Constitution, 7 major religious groups (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Animist, & Jain), and caste based reservations as a result of the caste system that plagued India until the end of British rule! It also has 6 recognized national parties and 47 recognized state parties. (Imagine the difficulty of getting anything agreed on with that many different viewpoints butting heads!) To put this in perspective, in contrast, the United States, consisting of 50 states and 4 [unincorporated organized] territories, only has to deal with, at most, 2 major languages [English and Spanish] and almost 96% of Americans who declare religion are Christian. Furthermore, there are only 2 major parties and 3 minor parties (Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties). So, the fact that India has survived, and grown (over the past thirty years in particular), as a constitutional democracy for 66 years is quite impressive.

But the fact remains that this constitutional democracy is plagued with problems and issues that have to be addressed, and solved, if the country is to continue to grow, and flourish in the coming decades, as some optimists are predicting. In the next twelve posts (over the next twelve weeks) in the series, SI will dive into twelve of the most prominent issues to present you with a clear picture of the major challenges that lie ahead of India in its quest to become the next great Asian superpower and the center of your global supply chain.

Stay Tuned!