Category Archives: Economics

Cost Reduction Strategies to Avoid

Cost reduction as a strategy is dangerous. First of all, a company that is too focused on cost might lose sight of value, which is what Supply Management is all about. Secondly, a company that is myopically focussed on immediate cost reduction is likely to make one or more of the following mistakes and actually increase costs in the long term.

Direct cost focus

This sounds like a great idea, since it’s where many organizations in manufacturing and CPG have the bulk of their spend, but the reality is that these are the categories that get analyzed year after year after year, while indirect categories fall by the way side. And the reality is that it’s much better to save 10% on 40 M then it is to save another 2% on a 100 M category. It’s twice the savings.

Landed cost focus

While it’s true that you can (theoretically) “book” a savings if a hardball negotiation gets you the same widget for $1, including transportation, that the organization used to pay $1.10 for, this is not really a savings if the widget is of lower quality and has a higher failure rate. If 15% break-down during the warranty window, when only 5% used to break-down, this has not only increased the average unit cost from 1.16 to 1.18 (in terms of functioning units), but tripled your warranty costs. If replacement costs turn out to be twice the product cost then, instead of paying an average of 1.20 per unit from a TCO perspective, the organization is now paying 1.30 per unit (from a TCO perspective) when the total cost of the lower quality product is calculated.

Year-over-year price reductions in multi-year contracts

This is my favourite example of cost reduction ridiculousness. Sometimes, anxious to meet the ridiculous mandate of 5% year-over-year cost reductions for the next three years, Supply Management organizations will try to negotiate three year contracts with year-over-year price reductions of 5% built in. And often they’ll exceed, and cost the organization approximately 15% more then if they just negotiated the best deal they could. Why? The supplier is going to have to make a profit each year it is in business. Since it’s likely not going to change the production methodology, the raw materials, or the labor that goes into making the product for the lifetime of the contract, the supplier knows that the price in year 3 has to be enough to be profitable. So the price it quotes in year 2 will be 5% more and the price in year 1 will be 5% more again in an attempt to insure it is still profitable in year 3. As a result, the organization ends up paying significantly more in the first two years than they could have paid by just negotiating the best, flat, deal possible. The right way to get year-over-year savings is to tackle different categories each year, not try to negotiate silly year-over-year savings in a single category.

Is Supply Management the Economic Cure Everyone is Looking For?

In a recent article over on the ISM site that asks “[if] your supply chain [is] ready for stagflation”, the authors state that the current economic outlook for the long-term is stagflation, which they also state is practically unavoidable because the drivers are difficult to reverse. However, they also state that it may be shortened if the right actions are taken.

What are the right actions? According to the authors, the period of stagflation may be shortened if investments are geared toward revamping and improving supply chains, a task which falls under the purview of Supply Management. Why will this help?

Consider the situation, as summarized by the authors:

  • we’re in a recession that is the deepest since WWII,
  • the NIA thinks we are headed toward hyperinflation, but the US Federal Reserve believes otherwise; regardless
  • a long recession builds pent-up demand for consumer goods, at a time when
  • interest rates are at a historical low,
  • unemployment is still high, and
  • the Federal Reserve Bank has pumped significant capital into the economy.
  • Historically, increased consumer spending pulls the economy out of recession, but
  • consumer confidence, and spending, usually improves with expectations of (near) future improvements in the economy. When this occurs
  • if companies cannot meet demand, we’ll see “demand-pull” inflation and
  • if inflation occurs, the Federal Reserve will likely increase interest rates.
  • Right now, inventories are too low and
  • manufacturing is experiencing significant cost pressures. Thus,
  • the outlook is low profitability for manufacturers and
  • low profitability and inflation will result in slow, or no, economic growth — stagflation!

Now consider what will happen if Supply Management is allowed to invest considerable dollars in revamping supply chains.

  • Increased efficiency and optimally balanced inventories will prevent the “demand-pull” inflation that is predicted to occur and
  • as a result, interest rates will likely stay reasonable.
  • Cost pressures will decrease as a result of re-balancing of production to minimize logistics costs, increase efficiency, and use more affordable materials which will result in
  • profitability for manufacturers increasing.
  • A resurgence of corporate faith in the economy will lead to more hiring,
  • which will renew consumer confidence, and since they will have more dollars to spend as a result of decreased unemployment levels,
  • spending will increase, releasing the pent-up demand for consumer goods, and then the
  • economy will rebound.

No stagflation. I think the authors of the piece over on the ISM site that asks “[if] your supply chain [is] ready for stagflation” are brilliant. Because, with a careful analysis, it really does look like better Supply Management, with investments in supply chain improvements across the board (which result in more job creation immediately), can pull the economy out of the funk it is in.

Dealing with Price Volatility in the Turbulent Global Marketplace

In the Hackett Group’s recent insight on “Taming the Inflation Dragon”, we find out that the average company is facing a 9% drop in corporate profits this year due to rising prices and other inflationary pressures and that this translates into a 150 Million hit to the bottom line for a typical Global 1000 company with 27.8 Billion in revenue. Ouch!

Obviously, the company is counting on the supply management organization to control costs despite the rampant price increases in a market where commodity inflation has not only increased by 30% overall but where price volatility has increased nearly 60% since before the recession. Not an easy challenge, especially since speculation in commodity markets is having a major impact on 43% of companies and a moderate impact on 17% more. And with the majority of suppliers passing on increased cost, every company is feeling the squeeze. So what can a supply management organization do to improve the situation?

Use rigorous input price/cost forecasting processes
that integrate data from a large number of sources (public indices, private indices, third party market intelligence, etc.) and internal purchase price history. The processes should include years of historical data in the analysis and apply multiple forecasting models to arrive at most likely prices given current trends and models that traditionally work well under similar levels of price volatility.

Augment input cost forecasting with scenario-based business planning processes
that integrate input price/cost forecasts into a pro-forma profitability plan. The scenarios should consider the extreme cases where demand explodes or demand plummets so that the organization can also develop supply risk management contingency plans and estimate their associated costs so that the overall price/cost models are reasonable and capable of being rapidly adjusted if needed.

Employ advanced demand forecasting models
that create good demand forecast ranges to lock down supplier capacity and pricing. Given that one in four companies experiences significant price volatility by having to pull against limited supply, the last thing a supply management wants to do is have to spot buy in a tight market.

Centers of Excellence that use deep predictive analytics
to not only identify input costs that are likely to increase significantly or undergo increased volatility, but to develop detailed should cost models to support negotiations against undue supplier increases, to reduce supply needs of cost-inflated items by changing specifications or identifying alternate materials, and to identify non-price items that can be traded to off-set price increases (such as better payment terms, new business, or supply management support from your supply management organization). Analytics is a key technology for cost reduction and avoidance across the board.

Clear direction and strategy
for hedging and decision making. This needs to start with a cross-functional consensus on what the business objectives are. Is it to “beat the market”, even if it comes at the cost of establishing complex hedging processes? Is it to “smooth” supplier pricing? Or is it to “smooth” margins by the simultaneous optimization of sell-sie and buy-side commercial strategies. Supply Management and Finance must be aligned.

What Impact Will a 9% Drop in Profits Have On Your Organization?

Unless your Supply Management organization takes it to the next level, your company is facing a 9% drop in corporate profits this year due to rising prices and other inflationary pressure according to a recent Hackett Group study. For a typical Global 1000 company with 27.8 billion in revenue, Hackett’s study estimated that commodity and offshore labor inflation will drive a 150 million per year hit to the bottom line. Ouch!

Why? While most companies are now able to effectively anticipate commodity price increases, more than 60% of companies surveyed by Hackett in the recent study have not been successful at mitigating these cost increases. The reality is that few executives have experienced significant inflation, which is now at levels not seen in 30 years (when inflation rates hovered around 13% back in 1981).

And while inflation may not yet be at 13%, it is bad. Not only do respondents to the Hackett study expect the rate of inflation for commodities overall to rise by more than 30%, to 6.3% a year, but commodity price volatility has increased nearly 60% since before the recession. Making matters worse, at the same time, due to the talent crunch, the rate for internal labor is expected to more than triple from 0.7% to 2.2% and the rate of inflation for external labor is expected to more than double from 1.2% to 3%.

The problem, as identified by the Hackett study, is that most companies tend to take a fragmented, siloed approach to anticipating and mitigating costs. And while more advanced companies will forecast prices and do some basic hedging by adjusting contract length, purchase volumes, or inventory levels, few take the cross-functional approach required to combat the mitigation. The majority of companies do not do the analysis required to understand the impact of commodity cost increases on profitability, do not use specialized analytics to anticipate future commodity costs, and do not provide clear direction and policy for making hedging decisions. A future post will explore in greater detail some of the options presented in Hackett’s study on “Taming the Inflation Dragon” and why your organization must adopt more advanced

Is Your Supply Management Organization About to Move to Asia?

As per this recent article over on the McKinsey Quarterly on “Translating Innovation into US Growth: An Advanced-Industries Perspective”, the US is posed for a future in which the elements of economic leadership are moving abroad. The US might still be the global leader in R&D spending overall, but in order to maintain its competitive edge, it has to be able to devise innovations the world wants and needs and translate those into economic leadership.

Economic leadership requires more than a capital market system that encourages (and rewards) risk taking and entrepreneurship, more than simply attracting top students and teachers globally, and more than bulk spending. As per the article, it also requires cutting-edge technology, demand, talent, and entrepreneurial spirit. And, right now, the US is falling behind on each of these.

Cutting-Edge Technology
In leading industrial technologies — such as advanced batteries, high-speed rail, hybrid automobiles, solar modules, offshore wind turbines, and machine tools — the United States finds itself competing against, or even catching up, with foreign companies and engineers. Furthermore, as the article notes, the US is now relying on Japan, Russian, and Western Europe to launch its satellites — an industry it used to pretty much own globally. If the US can’t even compete in green energy, it’s in for trouble.

Demand
More than 50% of the global middle class now lives outside North America and the demand for many next-generation products is now coming from Asia, Latin Ameria, and the Middle East. These customers are creating new markets and dictating preferences. US products for the US market are no longer profitable on their own in many industries.

Talent
Scientific and engineering talent is now building up outside the US while one-third of US manufacturing companies are suffering from skills shortages. Cutting edge research is moving to India and China as well as accelerating in Japan and Germany.

Entrepreneurial Spirit
Once a mainstay of the private sector, risk aversion to new vetures is increasing across the board in the US. At the same time, the “new” India is becoming much more entrepreneurial and risk taking. It’s not a good combination.

Then, when you also consider:

Cost
Many emerging countries have labour and overall operating costs that are still only a third of labour and operational costs in North America or Europe.

Success
A number of global multinationals, including IBM, have proved that you can move global Financial, Services, and Supply Management organizations to China and India and still be a world-class organization.

it becomes impossible not to ask if your supply management organization is about to move to Asia.