Category Archives: Logistics

There is a Price of Relocating to “Friendly Countries”, but There Are also Corresponding Cost Reductions

This originally posted on January 3 (2024), but is being reprinted in case you missed it due to the rising importance of near/home shoring!

A recent article in El Pais on the price of relocating factories to ‘friendly countries’ noted that according to the European Central Bank (ECB), 42% of the large companies in the Old Continent that it has recently surveyed have resolved to produce in allied countries as a means of reducing risks. However, this relocation carries economic consequences, and international institutions — such as the IMF and the ECB — warn of its impact on growth and soaring prices.

The article is right. Some prices will go up as countries move out of countries in, or likely to engage in conflict, both of the physical (war) and the economic (closed borders, significant tariff increases, rolling lockdowns, etc.) variety, and move to more “friendly” countries. (As far as SI is concerned, it shouldn’t just be “friendly” countries, it should be “friendly countries close to home”. At least companies are realizing that China and/or the lowest cost country is not always the answer when that answer comes with risks that, when they materialize, could lead to skyrocketing costs and losses that dwarf five years of “savings”.

Furthermore, even though 60% of those contacted said that changes in the location of production and/or cross-border sourcing of supplies had push up their average prices over the past five years, this hasn’t been true across the board, it doesn’t have to be true, and some of those could still see savings as they optimize their new processes, methodologies, and supply chain network. (Changes don’t reach full efficiency overnight, and sometimes it is two or three years before you can optimize a supply chain network due to existing contracts, infrastructure, etc.)

Why are costs (initially) going up for many companies?

  • wages: many of the “friendly” countries are more economically mature, or advantaged, with a higher standard of living buffered up by higher wages / better social systems
  • utility charges: in “friendly” countries that are using newer, cleaner, sources of energy or limiting energy production from burning (coal, oil, natural gas) have energy costs that are often higher as the initial infrastructure investment has not been amortized, water costs could be higher if more processing inbound or outbound is required, and so on
  • production overhead: chances are that the factories are newer, required a large investment that isn’t anywhere close to being paid off yet by the owner, and you’re paying a portion of the large interest payment to the investors/banks as part of the overhead

However, it’s important to note that:

  • productivity: will go up when you move to a locale where the workforce is more educated and skilled and is better able to employ automation and modern practices, and thus gets more efficient over time, countering the initial wage increase
  • energy costs: will reduce over time as a solar farm or wind farm can produce renewable energy for decades, with the initial investment often being paid back within one third to one quarter of that time; as a result, energy prices should remain flat(ter) over time than in the locales where they are still burning dwindling fossil fuels (which rise every year in cost) and have not yet invested in renewables
  • overhead: will decrease once the investments are paid back (and the interest payments are gone), which means it can stay flat as other production related costs rise (compared to older plants which will eventually reach a point where the revitalization investment becomes significant on a regular basis)

In addition to:

  • logistics costs: will reduce when you choose a friendly country closer to your target markets (since most freight is ocean freight on fossil fuel burning cargo ships)
  • disruption costs: will reduce as less risk translates into less (costly) disruptions over time

So while costs may go up a bit at first, at least relatively speaking, they will go down over time, especially as network and process optimizations are introduced and obtained from experience with the new network, suppliers, and technologies.

Don’t Abuse Lean and Mean — The Four Horsemen of the Shipocalypse Don’t Need Any Help!

If you are in Procurement or Logistics, you know that the time of cheap, fast, and reliable — which we had for almost two decades, is now long gone and likely to never return. That is because the four horsemen have turned their attention to global trade … specifically, global logistics … and have brought:

  • war: the conflict in the Red Sea, one of the two most important waterways in the world, has made most transport almost impossible
  • famine: the droughts in Panama, the other of the two most important waterways in the world, have reduced its capacity by at least 1/3 for at least 1/3 of the year
  • pestilence: plague has returned, taking down the necessary workers (and closing the necessary ports) with it
  • death: corporate greed and union response have stepped in here to bring certain death to global supply chains if things don’t change:
    • oil prices: the more they go up, the more unaffordable our dirty ocean freight becomes
    • limited capacity: greedy corporations scrapped ships during the pandemic for insurance claims, sometime ships that hadn’t even made a single voyage … and now that they’ve learned they can raise prices up to 10X pre-pandemic prices for a single container during peak season, and the richer (luxury good) companies will still pay the rates, they have no incentive to bring capacity back
    • union demands: inflation has been rampant, workers have been impacted, and they want their pre-pandemic buying power … and, as I’ve noted before, labour unrest and strikes is now one of the biggest risks in your global supply chain

As a result, the last thing you want to do is help the horsemen bring your supply chain to a a halt, but that’s exactly what you keep doing day in and day out as you keep pursuing, and applying, lean, mean, and JIT (just-in-time) where it doesn’t belong.

As noted by the author of this recent LinkedIn article on how you have (less than) two weeks to stave off supply chain chaos, we’re at the point where a one day stop in any part of the supply chain turns into one week to recover from, a one week stop in any part of the supply chain turns into one month to recover from, and a one month stop in any part of the supply chain totally f*cks us for a year! (Since the effects are not linear but exponential!) And it’s all your fault.

Lean and mean was supposed to be about efficiency in manufacturing and lack of waste, not slashing inventory to dangerous levels, not slashing capacity to dangerous levels, and was certainly NOT meant to be used by idiot MBAs (which stands for Master of Business Annihilation) with no concept of what the corporation does running global corporations off of spreadsheets alone!

So stop applying it to inventory and capacity! Thank you.

There are Perks and Pitfalls of Friend-Shoring — But The Answer is Near-shoring!

On Tuesday, when we told you the tariff tax is coming and there’s nothing you can do about it, we told you the long-term solution is near-shoring, and while others will tell you that the short-term answer is friend-shoring, we want to make it clear that it is NOT.

As a result of recent logistics disruptions, geopolitics, and global disasters, and all of the supply disruptions that have resulted, a lot of global companies are starting to pull back on global outsourcing and extended supply chains, at least where they seem to have options.

Apparently a number of these organizations are considering Friendshoring, as per yet another article on the subject, with a recent example being the perks and pitfalls of friendshoring in EP&T.

According to this article this strategic shift is buzzing among industry leaders and policymakers. Why, I’m not sure.

The article has the following benefits right:

  • enhanced security and trust as partners tend to trust each other and keep each other safe
  • improved compliance and standards as friends generally work to serve the same markets and are more aware of the standards and regulatory requirements that need to be met for all to benefit

And has the following challenge mostly right:

  • increased costs as most “friends” are in first world countries with higher labour costs, higher utility and operating costs, stricter environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. so costs are generally a bit higher up front (at first)

But here’s what the article overlooks:

  • better quality since these friends usually operate at higher standards with better tech which typically translates into
  • more reliability and longevity which generally translates into
  • reduced returns and warranty costs as customers will generally discard or move on from the product before it breaks
  • higher sales prices as customers will pay more for quality

And here’s what the article really overlooks.

It’s NOT friendshoring, it’s nearshoring!

Preferably somewhere you can get to on land, or from a nearby port. For North America, that means we should primarily be outsourcing from Central America (since we can get our stuff on trucks if ocean freighter availability is low) and, if we can’t get it there, from South America — since we can get it from a ship that sails up and down the coast (and doesn’t have to pass through a canal that has limited capacity due to drought or is unsafe due to terrorist presence). NOT from China, unless it is a raw material we can’t get elsewhere.

The nearer the source, and the less countries and distance the materials or products have to pass through, the less chance for disruption.

Moreover, it’s NOT the friends you have, it’s the friends you need, which may not be one in the same.

For example, a company in the UK might be your “friend”, but the UK is expensive, crossing the Atlantic is expensive and risky at certain times of the year, and you might be able to invest in a supplier in Mexico to get the same product! Moreover, if you invest in a company to help them grow, they are much more likely to stay your friend than a company who is only your friend because they think you are locked in to them.

Plus, if you choose, and invest in, up and coming / new suppliers, you can help them with their processes, new technology selections and plant upgrades, and even sub-tier supplier and material selection. This can be more helpful to you than an established supplier locked into their ways and last-generation technology and production lines they paid too much for.

Some of your “friends” will be the right “friends”, some won’t. Analyze them all and make sure they fit all of your requirements: near, quality, reliability, and potential for future value creation. (Not just future cost reduction after you help them get efficient, but potential sales price increase, value added services, and other factors that might increase the overall profit equation. After all, Procurement is about increasing business value, not just about securing supply and controlling costs.)

Stay close to home, and even home-shore when you can, and you will see fewer disruptions, which should be your goal as supply disruption has been the biggest risk for at least the last 15 years.

Supply Chain Resilience is Becoming Key, but You Can Only Reach it By Design!

But while it used to be a relatively straightforward Supply Chain Network Design problem (especially if you had a good SCND tool with optimization and simulation capability), it’s become a lot more complicated.

A recent article over on Logistics Viewpoint on Resilience by Design: The Power of Simulation in Supply Chain Strategy did a great job of explaining the power and importance of optimization in supply chain network design (and demand fulfillment modelling), especially around optimizing cost between two potential fulfillment options (determined to be equally viable).

These days, you have to consider:

  • the reliability of the supplier (financial viability, raw material availability to it, geopolitical instability, etc.
  • the reliability and availability of the carriers (financial viability, available containers, route viability, etc.)
  • the carbon contribution of the fulfillment model (is it going to make targets today AND tomorrow)
  • … and how your supply chain will adapt if a supplier or carrier fails or a primary product becomes unavailable and you have to switch to a secondary product

That’s true resilience … not just managing costs under demand shifts, but managing availability under supply shifts — in the supplier, carrier, or product.

It’s a tall order, and not all platforms in our space can handle it (well beyond standard SSDO), but a few can. From a network management viewpoint, you can check out Logility Network Optimization (formerly Logility Starboard) and Coupa with their SSDO and SCNO solutions.

The reality is that it doesn’t matter how great of a deal you inked if you can’t actually acquire the products at the agreed upon prices, and, more importantly, if you can’t even get the products at all! So if you want a resilient supply chain, you need to design for it. And sometimes that goes beyond just doing the standard 80/20 or 50/30/20 splits (because if all the suppliers are in the same fault zone on the ring of fire … it will only take one disaster for them all to burn).

Source-to-Pay+ Part 6: (In) Transport Risk

In Part 1 we noted that Risk Management went much beyond Supplier Risk, and the primitive Supplier “Risk” Management application that is bundled in many S2P suites. Then, in Part 2, we noted that there are risks in every supply chain entity; with the people and materials used; and with the locales they operate in. In Part 3 we moved onto an overview of Corporate Risk, in Part 4 we took on Third Party Risk (in Part 4A and Part 4B), and then in Part 5 we laid the foundation for Supply Chain Risk (Generic).

As part of supply chain risk, we highlighted transport mapping and tracking as a key risk that the system should track, but noted that a generic supply chain risk management system would generally not be a full featured transport risk management system because such a system would also monitor and mitigate risks of goods in-transport. (Not just risks at nodes.) Such a system has a number of specific requirements beyond the basics outlined in our last article. In this article, we are going to discuss a number of those specific requirements.

Capability Description
Modal-Specific Support Cargo can travel by land, rail, sea, or air. As a result, an in-transport platform has to recognize each of these modes, the differences between them, the data that needs to be tracked, and the data that can be obtained from carriers providing each mode.

Such a platform should integrate with industry standard data feeds from TMS (Transport Management Systems), data feeds from major carriers, GPS systems, and other systems that provide data on your shipments, where they are, and when they are expected to get to the next location if the current leg of transport does not have a real-time GPS feed.
Cold Chain/Hazardous Not all cargo can travel dry at room temperature. Some has to travel wet, some has to travel refrigerated or frozen, and some has to travel with special precautions for hazardous materials. It’s critical that such a platform be able to tag items with these tags, these transport requirements, and assess the risks associated with the transport based on carrier, route, geolocation, etc.

Such a platform must be able to detect when a risk materializes or escalates, such as the delivery time estimate being pushed forward by a week when the cargo was only expected to have a shelf-life of six (6) days when delivered, extreme weather phenomena suddenly materializing in the region of the transport vehicle, or dangerous (man-made) accidents occurring as a result of a leak, accident, or failure in transport.
Manifests/Bills of Lading The system should be capable of accepting bills of lading and cargo / shipping manifests and ensuring that the bill of lading exactly matches the shipment that is expected from the supplier, the cargo/shipping manifest exactly matches the bill of lading, and the inventory at the dock/yard matches the cargo manifest. This is the only way to minimize the chance of theft and fraud during transport. And by fraud, we don’t just mean your goods disappearing, we mean your containers and your company being used to smuggle goods into one or more countries where the goods are prohibited in those countries.

The system should also be capable of identifying carriers who have had incidents in the past, the carriers who are most at risk due to the regions they operate in, and the carriers who are most at risk due to the products they are carrying, both for you and for others (based on public manifests).
Ports The system will track detailed information on the ports that are used in the supply network. It will maintain information on port capacities / throughput, the carriers that go in and out, the equipment, the security at the dockyards, and so on. It will maintain information on the labour situation (last strike, the date the contract ends, likelihood of a strike/slowdown, etc.) as well as the available workforce.

The system should be capable of tying in weather information, local geopolitical information, economic information, and other disruptions that could affect the port, as well as any other risk-based factors that are relevant.
Canals/Straits A lot of the world’s goods flow through canals (primarily the Panama and Suez) and straits to ports that are off of lakes and seas and not on the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. While there are the risks of natural disasters just as there are on the high seas, there are also the geopolitical risks associated with all of the countries that border the canal or strait. (Especially if they are unfriendly to the country of origin, destination, or registration of the ship.)

The system must track all of the risks specific to the canals and ports that the organization, and its carriers, use in the ocean-based transport of goods.
Warehouses/Cross-Docks Most goods procured by an organization will live in multiple warehouses in their journey through the supply chain. The suppliers, the shipper’s local cross-dock, the port warehouse, the railroad cross-dock, your primary warehouse, and the regional warehouses that supply your local retail centers or manufacturing plants, as appropriate. These docks all pose a security risk.

The system should support all of the third party risk capabilities that are relevant for the owner/operator of the warehouse, the locale the work force is in, the third parties that provide the workers, and any other risks that can be identified and monitored for.
In-Yard (Rail/Dock) Sometimes the goods are in a warehouse, and sometimes they are just in a yard at the dock or the (rail)yard waiting to be loaded on a truck or a train to be taken to a cross-dock or warehouse. The risk will be a blend of warehouse/cross-dock and port/rail risks, tailored to the relevant locale.

The system should support all of the associated third party risk capabilities that are relevant, and, as with the warehouse/cross-dock, support risks that can be identified and monitored for.
Airports/ Some goods will go by sea, some by rail, some by land, and some by air. Airports have their own class of risks — which can include hijackings, crashes, and way too many carriers and personnel in and out of shared warehouses.

Similar monitoring to in-yard, but expanded to meet the specific need of airports servicing your cargo.
Driver/Conductor/Captain The biggest risks in transport are often not the third party carriers you deal with, but the people — are they appropriately vetted, trained, certified, and monitored? Who are they associated with? Can those associates pose risks? Do they need to be monitored? If so, when and how?

This system should integrate with an employee/contractor certification and monitoring systems to at least make sure all employees/contractors assigned to the organization’s cargo have appropriate licenses, certifications, training, and insurance.

And, of course, an In-Transport Risk Management system will also need a host of generic analytics/planning/monitoring capabilities, but since many of these are common, and since stand alone risk-focussed analytics applications are also part of the plethora of offerings out there, instead of discussing these generic features in this and every other article, as we noted in our coverage of Corporate Risk, we will instead discuss these capabilities in an article dedicated to Risk Analytics and Monitoring.