Author Archives: thedoctor

Has the Best been Bought from Best Buy?

StorefrontBacktalk recently ran a couple of pieces on Best Buy that followed up their recent pieces on “Best Buy’s Black Friday Fiasco” and “Best Buy’s Wifi Porn”, which was expanded upon by SI in its recent posts on how if you wanted a best buy experience, you weren’t going to get it at Best Buy (Part I and Part II). In its first piece on “Best Buy’s Last Hope”, the author says that Best Buy has one shot — an expensive, painful, highly disruptive shot — to truly turn itself around. It must embrace customer service in-sore to an extent that would make Nordstrom, Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods blush. That means store associates who are true experts in the electronics they are selling.

Frankly, I don’t think this is going to happen. The mentality would have to change from “who will work for us for minimum wage and pretend they know enough about this product to actually sell it” to “where can we find someone who knows what they are talking about, is passionate about the products they sell, and will actually work for us as a sales rep” and “what is it going to take to get that kind of people”. Right now, the type of service I’m used to is “this isn’t my department, you’ll have to find someone that is working in this department” to queries as simple as “can you tell me if you still have any of this product in stock” (which any associate can do simply by logging into one of their terminals and doing a query) or, my favourite, in response to “I’d like that” (pointing to something in a cage). Get the key, open the damn cage, give it to me and/or walk it to the cashier. An untrained monkey could do it! (And monkeys are smarter than you think. Pete the Monkey taught himself to do dishes.)

Plus, as the author notes, they would probably have to fire most of their staff and replace them with Apple-store caliber employees. And any employee of that caliber is probably going to go work for Apple or, if they prefer Windows, Sony where knowledgeable associates are preferred.

After all, as the author notes, they currently think they can win a price war with Amazon. A company with massively deep pockets, minimal physical overhead (compared to a retail store chain), and a willingness to go eight years without turning a profit just to conquer a market. Winning a price war against Amazon in the electronics space is not going to happen. Amazon can, and will, win on margin every time if that’s what it takes to be the next major electronics retailer and put Best Buy and its competitors out of business. (And it won’t be hard when it’s customer service reps often give better service over the phone than Best Buy associates in store!)

The other piece that got my attention was that “Best Buy Planned Outages Due to Its Move to the Cloud”. If you believe the hype (and the doctor does not), the whole point of moving to the cloud is so that you don’t have outages. But the most ironic aspect to this story is that Best Buy is cutting Amazon a check for its cloud efforts. They might as well just sell to Amazon.com now and become Amazon’s mobile presence. One little glitch and a propagated purge command and — voila! — no more Best Buy online. (Not that it would make a huge difference anyway. What good is a web store that a growing portion of your market can only order one item from at a time anyway? [See Best Buy Experience? Not at Best Buy! Part II.] the doctor is now ordering more electronics from the local office supply depot because their web site actually works! And if you send them an e-mail, customer support actually responds! On the other hand, it seems that Best Buy’s method of dealing with problems is just to ignore them. It’s not a problem if you don’t recognize it, right?)

The nostalgic part of me would like to say that Best Buy still has a Bright Future, but, in the doctor‘s view, the only chance of Best Buy lighting up the sky is if the same thing happens to it as happened to the Buy More in the season three finale of Chuck. The way things are going, it’s going to be closing 50 stores (CNN Money, March 29, 2012) on a regular basis. And I don’t think China’s going to save it. If Best Buy truly takes off in China, there’ll likely be so many indistinguishable clones in three months that it will just be hastening its demise.

Are All of Your Supply Management Planning Processes Aligned?

A recent article over on Supply Chain Brain from JDA software on Building the Supply Chain of the Future made a great point when it noted that in any supply chain there are … core business processes that must be closely synchronized in order to enable organizational agility and market responsiveness. Unless business processes are aligned in closed-loop planning processes, the organization will be unable to sense demand shits and … balance a number of priorities, including costs, customer service levels, supply risks, production constraints and environmental targets in its quest to achieve the best possible outcome.

The article from JDA indicated that six core planning processes must be synchronized in order to achieve agility, market responsiveness, and success. And they are right. The following six planning processes must be synchronized:

  • Sales & Operations Planning (S&OP)
    A good S&OP process provides a disciplined cadence for monitoring and synchronizing demand, production, supply, inventory, and financial plans via a rigorous Plan-Do-Check-Act process as a foundation for allowing the supply chain to share a common perspective on issues and potential resolutions.
  • Demand Planning
    Typically involves the utilization of advanced statistical and predictive modelling to ensure that sourcing, production, inventory, transportation, and distribution models are optimized on a shared forecast.
  • Inventory Planning
    Good inventory planning allows for tailored “designer” models for each category and commodity to minimize overstock, out-of-stock, and financial risks based upon key commodity and category attributes.
  • Master Planning
    That allows for S&OP, inventory, and demand-based supply plans to be analyzed and updated daily in response to demand and supply changes.
  • Factory Planning & Scheduling
    The creation of optimized production plans by plants by scheduling backward from the requirement date, with material and capacity constraints simultaneously considered for feasible plan creation.
  • Collaborative Supply Planning
    That allows manufacturers to monitor multiple tiers of the supply chain and each supplier that is supplying a raw material, component, or service necessary for the creation of each product being sourced from a tier 1 supplier and work with multiple suppliers simultaneously to identify minor hiccups before they become major issues to collaboratively resolve a problem before it becomes a major headache.

But this is not enough to ensure success in today’s fast-paced fickle global marketplace. Not only do we have extreme demand, supply, and cost volatility across materials, components, products, and markets, but we also have extreme competition on the sales side as penny pinching buyers, short on cash, are looking for the best deal possible. As a result, your organization not only has to be leaner and meaner than ever before, but it has to be more focussed on the value it can provide. As a result, your S&OP, demand, inventory, factory, master, and collaborative supply plans have to be linked to, and reinforce, your organizational strategy. As a result, each of these plans need to be aligned with organizational:

  • Strategic Planning
    which is the process of defining the organizational strategy and direction and the allocation of resources, financial and human capital, to pursue this strategy.

If these seven planning processes are aligned, your organization just might have what it takes to make it through this decade and emerge a supply management leader when the smoke clears.

Will Your e-Auction Be A Success? Or Will You End Up in Court?

 

As an April Fool’s joke, SupplyManagement.com ran a piece about how a ‘court battle looms over e-auction “error”‘ which discussed a fictional case in the UK High Court as a result of legal proceedings initiated by a Chinese business in an attempt to hold a supplier to a price submitted in an e-auction. According to the article, one independent consultant William Sommers (represented by the UK law firm Jester & Prank), said he was participating in an e-auction for project management services while working at home where he left his iPad alone for a few moments to answer the door. He claims that during that time his daughter grabbed the iPad (because she loves a bit of Angry Birds) and must have pressed something to place a bid on his behalf as he returned to the iPad to find a bid he couldn’t change. As a result, to honour the bid he would have had to offer his services for “almost nothing” for a three-month project and argues that the supplier, Hohhot Axle Industries, is being unreasonable in trying to hold him to an offer that was a “genuine mistake”.

While this article was a prank, the issue it discusses is all too real. As pointed out in this recent piece on ‘a genuine bargain or a genuine mistake’, (poorly designed) e-auction software makes it very easy for buyers to submit incorrect bids and, even worse, correct bids that the supplier might decide, after the heat of the auction is over, that it does not want to honour. What do you do when its time to sign the contract, after you’ve informed all of the other suppliers that they lost and won’t be getting your business, and the supplier tries to back out? Especially if you need the goods or services quickly?

Chances are you panic and pay more because not only were the other bids higher, but when you desperately have to scramble to find product quickly, suppliers will know they have the upper hand and won’t be as competitive as when they (believed) they had to compete for your business. You’re taking a loss. But can you recover it in court?

As the above article indicates, if one party makes an error that the other party should know is a genuine error, the offer, even if it is an implied contract, can be rendered void by the courts. In fact, if the court believes that the details or circumstances of the offer from one party are such that the other party should know that a genuine error has been made, or the council for the party can argue that the other party should have known that a genuine error has been made, that is enough to void an offer.

So what can you do to prevent this from happening? Take lots of precautions.

  1. Describe the auction process in detail.
    Describe end-to-end how the event is going to play out from the initial invitation, through the pre-event data collection and supplier qualification, to the actual auction and the final contract award. There should be no unknowns in the supplier’s mind.
  2. Define the rules and force a bidder to accept the rules.
    Describe the rules for participation, the process for bidding, and the terms and conditions associated with the contract award up-front and force the supplier to accept all of the rules, processes, and terms and conditions before they can participate in the event.
  3. Create a secure account for each individual authorized to use the system and force them to accept full responsibility for the account.
    Force each representative to assert that this is their account, they take full responsibility for it, no one else will be allowed to use it, and they take full responsibility for all offers made through the account.
  4. Use software with controls and make sure you use the controls.
    Not only should you force confirmations on bids to prevent “genuine mistakes”, but you should also put limits on how much lower a bid can be with respect to the current lowest bid (to minimize errors as a bid should not drop from 10,000 to 100, which would indicate either a decimal point error or a misunderstanding as to lot size) as well as an absolute floor that defines the minimum acceptable bid (as you should not accept a bid that you know is lower than the theoretical lowest cost based on your cost model and the maximum efficiency that is achievable).

While this may not be enough to guarantee that 100% of bids will have to be honoured, as you cannot always predict the results of a court case if an argument were to go to court, it certainly puts the odds in your favour and minimizes the chances of a supplier making a bid that the supplier would be uncomfortable in honouring (especially since you’d have a stronger case if it went to court).

 

Is Supply Chain Losing the Talent Race?

PWC recently released a report on Winning the Talent Race which was Volume 5 of its study on talent management. Although it contained some not altogether unexpected results (given the talent shortage predictions back in 2007 and the lack of focus on talent management in Supply Chain), the numbers are still quite shocking in magnitude. Not only are 400,000 more truck drivers needed in the US trucking industry alone (up from about 100,000 five years ago), but current estimates by the CSCMP (Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) are that the US trucking industry will need to hire 1 Million new drives in the next 15 years just to deal with replacing retirees (as 35% of professionals in the transportation and logistics industry are over 50) and projected freight level increases!

But the real problem is that, first of all, this problem is global. Across North America and the EU we have the situation where 35%, or more, of our professionals are nearing retirement age and the number of potential recruits (eligible to hold a commercial driving license) is not keeping pace in an industry where the number of professionals needed to keep pace with global trade. Global trade is expected to at least triple in the next 20 years, due largely in part to emerging markets around the globe, and as a result, the number of professionals needed to staff the industry is going to triple in the next 10 to 15 years (as they need to be hired in time to get the requisite training and experience to take over before we lose all of our greybeards).

And, second of all, rising stars do not want to work in the industry. The researchers found that the new generation of recruits typically view jobs in the T&L sector as “dead-ends” because of factors including low wages, unfavourable working environments, and a lack of career advancement opportunities and that 27% of current T&L workers compromised in accepting a job they felt had less career potential / opportunities for advancement than they had hoped and over 50% of logistics and supply chain professionals are actively looking for another job with better offers. This is terrible and shocking. Supply chains fuel the business world and half of the people we have want out?

But we shouldn’t be surprised. When was the last time your organization actually did something to address the talent management issue that has been on your top three list for the last five years. If you’re honest, chances are your answer is a number that is further than five years in the past or never. Every year for the past four years, like The Mpower Group who has also been trying to address this issue for a couple of years, I heard lots of chatter about how this was going to be the year the organization was going to take the talent bull by the horns and get it in line and every year nothing got done as the training budget was the first to go in the lingering downturn and focus was shifted back to cost savings at all cost. You can’t ignore a talent management issue year over year and expect that it will just fix itself from an organizational viewpoint. The only thing that will happen is that whatever talent you have will leave and take your talent reputation with you. (And good luck attracting new talent then.) If you think your problems are bad enough now, imagine how bad they’ll be when you have no points of talent attraction in a world where talent is attracted to, and finds, talent.

Remember, we are entering the age of connectedness where, thanks to global mega-platforms like LinkedIn and Facebook, everyone is connected to everyone else within 5 degrees of separation (actually, 4.6 and falling), and everybody knows that the dice are loaded, rolling with their fingers crossed. And everybody knows that when your top talent leaves that the plague is coming and moving fast (and, thanks to Facebook, they know before you do). That’s why one of the major recruitment weak points that the survey pointed out is social media. Unfortunately, Transportation, Logistics and Supply Chain is way behind on this front and losing ground fast.

Of course, recruitment isn’t the only issue. As the survey discovered, it’s also compensation, career path, and corporate brand. Rising stars want to feel that they are getting the best offer out there, that they can progress up a career path, and that they are working for a great company. A quick look at the top employer lists doesn’t include many (if any) T&L companies and only a few are known for their world class supply chains. Companies like Apple, where the CSCO (Chief Supply Chain Officer) can become next-in-line for CEO, need to be the norm, not the exception (and a career path from logistics manager to CSCO has to exist for the right hard-working, ambitious, and ready to learn superstar). In addition, as the report points out, the lack of diversity and understanding of demographic shifts isn’t helping.

In short, if your organization doesn’t kick its Supply Management Talent Management program into high gear this year, it may not be around in five years to figure out how it’s going to replace 35% of its staff.

Good Data Will Not Guarantee Good Decisions … But Informed Skeptics Increase the Odds

In our last post, we noted how great it was to see this recent article in the Harvard Business Review on how Good Data Won’t Guarantee Good Decisions because investments in analytics can be useless, even harmful, unless employees can incorporate that data into complex decision making and only 38% of employees and 50% of senior managers, on average, are equipped to make good decisions given good data. As pointed out by the authors, there are too many “unquestioning empiricists” and “visceral decision makers” and not enough “informed skeptics” who can effectively balance judgment and analysis with strong analytic skills and a willingness to listen to others’ opinions, but dissent if necessary.

As a result, organizations need to do whatever they can to increase the number of informed skeptics within their four walls. So what can they do? According to the authors, they can:

  • Train workers to increase data literacy
    and more efficiently incorporate information into decision making so they can make better decisions and
  • Give the workers the right tools
    to turn the data into information.

With respect to training, the authors recommend workshops and coaching. Workshops can teach them that they must understand the factors and calculations behind the numbers and learn to think critically about the accuracy, sample sizes, biases, and quality of their data. Even people who took statistics in college could probably use a refresher to help them apply what they learned then to their current jobs … especially since most people, analysts included, don’t understand statistics. (Remember that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.) Coaching by people-oriented data experts can provide informal, ongoing training to employees that can gradually improve their skills. Given that surveys indicate that only 25% of all knowledge workers receive effective training in information analysis and use, this is a good start.

With respect to tools, there is a vital need to interpret data displays in a manner that allows them to deduce the information the data contains. Just because most executives choose to go with good-enough data now vs. perfect data later doesn’t mean it’s the right thing, not because perfect data is always a useful goal (as sometimes good enough is good enough), but because, without the right tools and understanding, it’s not always clear if good enough is good enough.

But is this enough?

No.

Three factors are always required for success: technology (tools), talent (training), and transition (change management of the process). Overlooking how the training is to be applied, the technology is to be used, how the results are going to be interpreted, and how the change from dumb data to intelligent information is going to be implemented so that it sticks, the training takes hold, the technology gets used, and the results get repeated is very important. Otherwise, a few moderate wins will be made, but as pressure mounts to get things done, the talent will revert to the old ways and the tools and training will be for nought.