Category Archives: Manufacturing

What Does AmazonSupply Mean to the Business Supply Chain?

Rummaging through the Supply Management sites recently, looking for tidbits I might have missed, I came across this post over on Supply & Demand Chain Executive that asked what AmazonSupply means to the business supply chain. Given the force that Amazon is in the consumer world, it’s certainly a question worth asking, but is it a question worth answering?

If you check out the AmazonSupply beta web site, you see that they carry a wide range of products classified into thirteen categories which primarily focus on shop floor manufacturing, basic laboratory equipment, cleaning, and office supplies — which is only a sampling of the categories that are easily obtained through MFG.com or Alibaba.com. Plus, the prices on some of the products aren’t that great. For example, the LEGO Education DUPLO Playhouse Set in the Science Education Category, as I write this, is $99.58, while the same product on the legoeducation.us site is $104.95. Sure, that’s a savings of slightly over 5%, but no where near what you could get sourcing direct from the manufacturer in bulk (even at small volumes). And the DeWALT DCD940KX 18V 1/2″ Cordless XRP Drill/Driver Kit is 229.57, only 11% less than the same product on CPO PowerTools and more than what I’ve seen the same product on sale for at Home Depot – a consumer retail establishment.

In other words, it’s very convenient, and probably guaranteed not to charge you any more than the hardware / office supply / janitorial supply / laboratory supply store down the street / in your local industrial park for the vast majority of items carried, but certainly not revolutionary for anyone need to source more than one drill bit, or drill, when sourcing product. As far as I am concerned, it is NOT a threat to e-Procurement providers and, in its current form, no where near as revolutionary as Amazon was to the book distribution market a decade ago in its current form. Right now, the only people who have to worry are chains like Home Depot and Canadian Tire, Staples and Office Depot, Henry Schein and Sanplatec, and your local providers of cleaning supplies and machine parts. Basically, any store where someone would go for a one-off purchase risks losing business. But anyone who was selling in bulk, on negotiated contracts at discounted rates, hasn’t a thing to fear with AmazonSupply.

In fact, the only companies with anything to fear are e-Procurement solution providers who provide nothing more than catalogue and punch-out functionality, as AmazonSupply makes that irrelevant for many companies who will be able to use AmazonSupply as a one-stop one-off shop and the ability to easily track orders is a big plus for anyone having to deal with mounds of paper receipts. And while AmazonSupply could, with time, offer a more integrated supply management solution with financing, purchasing support, and even spend categorization and baseline analysis, I don’t see this maturing all that quickly. What good is advanced functionality that only works on a small portion of you one-off off-contract spend? In other words, for the foreseeable future, any e-Procurement platform with any level of sophistication has nothing to fear.

What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ – Counterpoint

Today’s guest post is from Dick Locke, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on International Sourcing and Procurement, and is a counterpoint to Derek Singleton‘s recent post on What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ over on Software Advice.

This is the kind of prediction I like to put in an envelope and promise to open in 5 years to see if it came true.

It’s great that Airbus came to the United States. There’s no doubt that many companies who tried China sourcing weren’t capable of doing it well. There was also a rush to put production in China that didn’t belong there. Those would be items that require flexible scheduling and for which air freight costs make China prohibitive for US consumption. No doubt some of that is in the $200B pie chart of products that are likely to move from China to the US. No doubt that Chinese labor costs are rising, but the 13% figure annual increase figure cited is for Chinese minimum wage, of questionable relevance to exports.

But $122B in computers and electronics? I really doubt that. That’s roughly 100% of the US imports from China of computers, phones, TVs and monitors, and parts for those items. Those aren’t being built in China for anything much to do with labor costs. It’s where the suppliers are. Foxconn has a million people assembling electronics. Why do manufacturers gravitate toward a particular location? Michael Porter, in “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” nailed it. It’s a combination of four factors.

  1. Factor conditions (this includes labor rates and a lot more)
  2. Related and supporting industries
  3. Demanding customers
  4. High degree of competition

China has three out of the four. They are especially strong in item 2. Nearly all the components are built there, except for a few high value parts.

Looking further, if companies pull out of China, where would they go? Phones, other than from Apple, largely come from Korean and Taiwanese companies.

Televisions are also largely from non-US companies. As they drop in price, shipping costs become a larger fraction of total costs, so many TVs for the North American market are being built in Mexico. (Mexican TV and monitor imports to the US passed China’s a few years ago.)

We’ll see how the prediction holds up. In the meantime, strategic sourcing professionals should make up their own minds, not just look at trends or predicted trends.

Thanks, Dick. (Global Supply Training)

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.

Is Your Dumpster Full of Dollars?

And I’m not just talking about the significant savings opportunities that can come from optimizing your trash pick up with a good spend analysis, as discussed in SI’s recent post that asked [IF] You Know How Much Your Trash Costs You? An average retail chain will write of a lot of damaged inventory and discard it in the dumpster when, in fact, that inventory, if repaired, or, typically, returned in a timely manner, could result in significant dollars back in the retail chain’s pocket.

As pointed out in a recent post over on the Supply Chain View from the Field on “Reverse Logistics: What happens to all of those product returns you’ve been making, anyway?”, what typically happens with a return that could result in a credit to the retailer is that it ends up in many cases going into the dumpster even though, in many cases, the product is still good. This happens for a variety of reasons. The store manager doesn’t know that a return to the manufacturer will result in a credit. The store manager believes it will cost more to process the return than discard the item (or, if the store manager is lucky enough, sell it to a flea market). The store manager knows that there is money that is probably worth going after in the return, but has to use a new returns management / liquidation system that they don’t know how to use and can’t figure out on their own because it’s clumsy or ill-defined (like the SARS system that has been pushed down to individual stores by Home Depot and that could spell the beginning of the end). Or maybe they can figure out how to record the damage, get a pending credit, but lose the credit because they don’t process, and (bar)code the return properly.

Returns, which can often be refurbished, repaired, re-sold, or in the case of a NPI (New Product Introduction), returned to the producer/manufacturer within a certain timeframe for a full refund as per the contract, may not have the profit potential of a product that is not returned, but they still have profit potential and, most importantly, when properly managed, do not result in expense and loss. Proper reverse logistics and returns management, which is standardized, near real-time, and provides multi-channel visibility (as discussed in this post which brought you Reverse Logistics Tips from World Trade Magazine, significantly improves the bottom line and should be performed by every retailer and reseller.

For a few more tips, check out Rob Handfield’s tips from his post on “Reverse Logistics: What happens to all of those product returns you’ve been making, anyway?”.

Apologies to the Faithful, but Optimized Planning is Good, not God!

Last Tuesday, Trevor Miles published a great post over on the the 21st Century Supply Chain blog on how “Optimized Planning is Good, not God!”. This cannot be understated. Too many companies think that a great plan is the key to unlock the treasure chest that contains the much sought-after savings. It’s the key alright, but you have to fit it in the lock if you want to unlock the treasure chest. And the only way one gets to fit the key in the lock is if one actually reaches the treasure chest, and this requires control. You see, this treasure chest of savings sits on a pedestal at the end of a dark and dangerous dungeon filled with traps, treacherous descents, and natural horrors at every turn. Think of every dungeon and tomb that Indiana Jones had to survive, put them all together, and add in a few dozen more traps and that’s the danger an organization has to evade on a daily basis if it wants to reach the treasurer chest.

As such, an organization requires a lot of control in the form of integrated monitoring and control. At every turn, an organization has to look ahead to see what traps may lie in its path, look back to see what creatures are coming up behind it, and be aware of the foundations crumbling beneath its plan and react quickly, and correctly. The reasons this are the case is simple — nothing every goes according to plan (even if you are the A-Team as you always have to deal with the unexpected wrench to complete the plan) and even if it did, the plan is never right anyway.

Consider the quoted study from Terra Technology that shows that an average forecast is typically no more than 52% accurate. This means that even if the supply forecast was perfect, it would still be, at most, 52% accurate. That’s why an organization has to continuously monitor the plan, and as soon as significant variances arise, respond by re-optimizing the plan. That’s the only way to reach the treasure chest of savings that optimization promises. Otherwise, the savings will never materialize as they were calculated with respect to a plan that was never executed.

So check out Trevor’s post over on the the 21st Century Supply Chain blog on how “Optimized Planning is Good, not God!”. It’s a great read!