LOLCat would like to remind you that:
LOLCat would like to remind you that:
In Parts I and II we lamented the relative lack of new innovation in the space for the last few years, as most of the big announcements, and innovations, have centered around technologies that were in (initial) development of the first half of the noughts, and usability and applicability (to specific verticals) in particular before noting that we don’t see much new in the way of trends coming this year and that we’re not alone.
In the last two posts, we covered the global trends identified by ChainLink Research in their recently published Big Trends for Business 2013 as well as the business trends companies expect to the capitalize on this year as a result. In the first case, it almost looks like the Mayans were right, the world came to a stop, and then immediately reversed direction as it looks like we’re in for 2012 all over again and in the latter case, the trends are the same trends they should have been capitalizing on last year!
And if this isn’t bad enough, the big issues identified by ChainLink are the same issues we’ve been facing for years. The big issues identified were:
Add the really sad thing is the underlying reasons we are facing these problems haven’t changed for years either:
And that the only path left to success is to focus on value.
In short, most companies are standing still with the same problem set because they haven’t learned what they need to learn.
In part I, we lamented the relative lack of new innovation in the space for the last few years, as most of the big announcements, and innovations, have centered around technologies that were in (initial) development of the first half of the noughts, and usability and applicability (to specific verticals) in particular. (Not to say there hasn’t been any innovation, but there’s a reason vendor coverage has been down the last couple of years. In addition to the fact that there’s been less to cover as the major best-of-breed players get gobbled up the IT gorillas who haven’t caught onto the value of social media and blogs in this space, there just hasn’t been as much to cover.)
Then we noted that we don’t see much new in the way of trends coming this year, and that SI isn’t alone! Reviewing ChainLink Research’s recently published Big Trends for Business 2013, it almost looks like the Mayans were right, the world came to a stop, and then immediately reversed direction as it looks like we’re in for 2012 all over again! The major global trends — slowing in the globalization of trade, china off-shoring, US Insourcing, Small Office Home Office (SOHO), and Local vs. Global don’t sound any different than what we’ve been seeing, hearing, and speaking for the last year (or two to be honest).
What’s even worse is that the business trends companies expect to the capitalize on this year are the same trends they should have been capitalizing on last year!
In addition, Retail needs to continue to pursue social media channels as sales channels; Life Science needs to continue to focus on better monitoring solutions; Food and Beverage need to focus on ingredient traceability from initial harvest to final consumption; and Packaging needs to focus on safety and security. Nothing new here either. And to top it all off, the big issues identified by ChainLink are the same issues we’ve been facing for years. But we’ll discuss those in Part III.
Regular readers will note that I’ve been lamenting the relative lack of new innovation in the space for the last few years. Most of the big announcements, and innovations, have centered around technologies that were in (initial) development in the first half of the noughts, and usability and applicability (to specific verticals) in particular. And most of the hype has centered around Big Data, which isn’t new, Cloud, which is just your provider giving you hands-off ASP, and “spend optimization” which is typically defined as real-time visibility into spend and budgets. All good, but where’s the ground-breaking new technology?
In fact, in the last few months, the only ground-breaking new R&D has centered on allowing players outside of Supply Management, namely Marketing, to manage the value chain. (Ugh. Supply Management is supposed to manage the value chain!) There’s a few companies that have come to my attention as of late that are working on some innovative new offerings that could reshape markets Supply Management should own. (And when they release their products/services, SI will cover them.)
But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. From a business perspective, I don’t see much new in the way of trends coming this year. And I’m not alone. ChainLink Research recently published their Big Trends for Business 2013, and it looks like we’re in for 2012 all over again.
Maybe the Mayans were right, the world came to a halt, and now we’re moving backwards. Seriously. Consider these global trends:
And as a result of these global trends, we will see a number of secondary trends focussed on by Supply Management and/or Manufacturing organizations this year. These will be discussed in Part II.
Don’t know how SI missed this, but apparently McKinsey has been telling everyone to abandon supply chains in favour of supply circles for almost a year now! What? While it’s true you can loop a chain to make a circle, it’s not always the case that you should. And, moreover, it’s not really a circle that you want, but a chain where information, inputs, and values flow up and down. Just like you can walk up and down stairs, you can push value up and down the chain.
But we’re getting ahead here. Stepping back, the article from last spring on “Manufacturing Resource Productivity” stated that manufacturers can generate new value, minimize costs, and increase operational stability by focusing on four broad areas: production, product design, value recovery, and supply-circle management. All true, but none of it requires you to manage a supply circle, or even treat the supply network as a circle.
Digging in, we find the article is building on an inforgraphic released at the same time that takes us “from supply chains to supply circles” and explains how companies can respond [to pressures on profit as a result of higher variable costs] by improving resource productivity. Furthermore, it goes on to say that leaders in the field are exploring circular operating models where value is created by looping products, components, and materials into the value chain after they fulfill their utility over the life of a product.
Essentially, the article is saying that you should recycle, refurbish, reuse, and repair — the reduce, reuse, recycle that environmentalists have been preaching for years. The only difference is that they are preaching that this thinking should pervade the supply chain and influence new business models that improve recovery, create new sources of supply, optimize production, and increase revenues and products. Isn’t this just the Design for Recycle that SI and other thought leaders have been preaching for over 6 years?!? (SI’s post is back in 2007!) It is! The only difference is that they are confusing you by saying that you have to circle your supply chain to make it work.
Sorry, bub, but this ain’t the case. As long as you build a recovery mechanism that is usable, and attractive, it doesn’t matter if you have a chain, a loop, a circle, or a figure 8. It’s not the physical design of the chain, but the capability. Maybe the consumers return unwanted / end-of-life products to a recovery centre that breaks your product down into component parts, and returns the working ones to your primary manufacturer and sends the broken ones to a base metals extractor that, in turn, sends the extracted metals to the component manufacturers that feed the primary manufacturer and the waste that it can’t process to a waste processor for further recovery efforts. And maybe the consumers return the produts to the retailer that sends them to you and you repair, or send them to a raw material extractor, as needed. The supply network might end up being circular, might loop back in to the manufacturer, or the return (and recovery) paths might be the exact inverse of the supply paths. The design doesn’t matter — it’s the capability to insure raw material supply and keep variable (and unpredictable) costs down that matters!