Category Archives: Supplier Management

What is The Price of Flexible Supply Chains? Part V: Eternal Vigilance

In this post, I’m going to discuss highlights from the CPO Executive Debate on “the price of flexible supply chains” and focus on why you have to be eternally vigilant.

Getting straight to the point, in response to how does emergence from the recession affect supply chain flexibility, Andrew Vaughan noted that there is a dynamism in the whole supply chain piece and therefore you have got to keep reviewing it constantly. Raw material shortages can bring an end to a product’s life, earthquakes can take out factories, and bankruptcies can take out suppliers literally overnight. One day your supply chain is running like a well-made Swiss timepiece … the next day it’s brought to a screeching halt as your fine tuned Ferrari slams into a brick wall.

Even if you, as Colin Davis points out, maintained a reasonably broad supply chain during the recession and maybe compromised some of the commercial advantages you could have taken in those situations so that you can then call on people as you go forward, if your suppliers or partners are in worse shape than you are, despite their good intentions, they might not be able to respond to the call. The safety net you think you have can be taken down at any time. Just like that information flow you painstakingly set up can disappear over night if you built it on a proprietary copper network which was just dug up and sold for scrap.

Furthermore, you need to keep an eye on the entire supply chain, which, as Andrew Vaughan points out, doesn’t necessarily end when you get the product delivered to the installer or customer. For many products, there is also the service chain to consider. Whereas many customers will just as happily trade up to a new model when their current cell phone dies, most customers want to keep their cars and high end (Apple) computers for a few years (or more). You need to be able to provide them with parts and services quickly when they need maintenance or repairs … because it all affects your image as a provider of quality goods and services.

Furthermore, not only do really advanced procurement supply chain organisations understand today the ripple effects that a natural disaster, or an epidemic, has on their overall supply chain, and take immediate preventative action even though only a sub-tier supplier to their main supply base is directly affected, as Martin Hogel notes, but these organizations also know that a ripple effect can start anywhere … even in the retail stores. For example, retailers can notice that product sales for a new category of product, like e-readers, is heating up across the board. They place orders into distributors for more product, who place orders into manufacturers for even more product, who place orders into component suppliers for much more flash memory, which is in limited supply. In this classic bullwhip effect scenario, the flash manufacturers will quickly sell out of all available inventory, and an artificial shortage will be created in the market. Those manufacturers who are not vigilant will not be among the first to get their orders in, their products will be delayed, and this will likely result in lost sales.

All in all, the need for eternal vigilance — in addition to strategy, customer obsession, and a strong supply base — is pretty clear and the debate (on the price of flexible supply chains) was quite an interesting one. If you haven’t yet done so, and can spare the time, I’d strongly recommend that you check the entire debate on the price of flexible supply chains and join in the discussion. It’s your supply chain on the line.

Share This on Linked In

What is The Price of Flexible Supply Chains? Part IV: Active Supply Base

In this post, I’m going to discuss highlights from the CPO Executive Debate on “the price of flexible supply chains” and focus on why you have to include the supply base.

The reality is that, no matter how much you try, only so much innovation and flexibility is going to originate from within your four walls. Most of the innovation, should you be ready to accept it, is going to come from your partners, and your supply base in particular. Furthermore, an A+ supply base can revolutionize the way you do business and significantly increase your profit potential. Consider the case of Zara, as discussed by Martin Hogel. Zara sells 85 per cent of its store stocks on initial price and the average in the clothing retail industry is 60-70 per cent. Zara’s on-target price:sales ratio is clearly an effect of a well-crafted and executed supply chain strategy … a strategy that is significantly increasing it’s revenue, and profit, by enabling it to outsell it’s competitors on an additional 15% to 25% of its product offerings.

While the obsessive customer focus discussed in the last post is critical, as Austen Bushrod notes, you need to get the supply base involved in that too because you truly need to have every stage of your supply chain involved to maximize your success. Even if it means, as Michael Walsh points out, that you have to nurture the supply base where they are struggling. After all, if you help them, they’ll remember that in your times of distress and help you. While there may be a few sociopaths in the business world, most people in business want to do what’s right, and that generally means helping you when you help them.

So how do you get there? As Guy Allen noted, you start with a transparency of information flow, then you, as noted by Colin Davis, cooperate, and finally, when it comes time for negotiations, leave the gun, take the cannoli. And before you’re done, you should, as Martin Hogel puts it, have a really good understanding of the structure of your supply base: which are strategic suppliers, which are, let’s call them preferred suppliers, and which are commodity suppliers or vendors. Then you can work with your strategic and preferred suppliers to come up with products and services that are truly value add to the customer, which, as per our last post, should be your obsession.

In our next, and final post, we’ll talk about how the final price of a flexible supply chain is eternal vigilance.

Share This on Linked In

Would Guanxi have saved Alcatel?

A recent article in the April 17th Edition of The Economist in the special report on innovation in emerging markets noted how Li & Fung, a Hong Kong-based company, has long been a pioneer, working closely with a network of about 12,000 companies operating in more than 40 countries. It puts together customized supply chains from its vast network of associates and keeps an eye on quality and order fulfillment. Similarly, Dachangjian, a motocycle-maker in China’s Guangdong province, works with hundreds of parts suppliers.

Specifically, it noted how these post-modern guanxi have several powerful qualities. For instance, they can contract or expand with demand. As a result, Li & Fung and Dachangjian seldom have problems with excess capacity when times are hard or with waiting lists when times are flush. Furthermore, they can be turned into engines of innovation. Li & Fung relies on its partners to help solve problems, not just fulfil orders. Dachangjiang provides its suppliers with rough sketches rather than detailed blueprints and encourages them to innovate.

Guanxi, the linking of two people in a relationship of mutual dependence, is common in Chinese business. While it has its downsides, as every gift of significant value will soon be followed by a request for a huge (personal) favour, it also has its upsides. Your partners stick by you in your times of need because you stick by them in their times of need.

I can’t help but think that if Alcatel had more of a guanxi relationship with their suppliers and kept track of the basics, as noted by Dick Locke in his recent piece, that they wouldn’t be blaming their suppliers for their recent 10% sales decline. But I’m not the expert, so I asked Dick Locke (SI’s resident expert on global trade) to elaborate on the advice he provided and whether guanxi would help Alcatel. This is what he said:

 

Well, doctor, sometimes I think we’re doing point-counterpoint. I didn’t see Alcatel blaming suppliers and I can’t imagine they could. I don’t know where their supply base is so let’s not put a country-specific name into the conversation. Let’s just call it “relationships”. But yes, they would have done better in their upturn if they had done something different. It could be maintaining better personal relationships, it could be a better matching of business strategies and it could be the existence of better contracts.

 

I’m not sure where they fell down. I do know that the telecom industry tends to see supplier relationship management as primarily a contractual issue. In my seminars, I usually ask how many people work at a company that ever took a supplier to court. About the only companies that say yes tend to come from the telecom world. Maybe it’s a legacy of being in a regulated industry. If Alcatel’s supply base is in Asia, most companies there value relationships over contracts. If it’s in Germany, it’s contracts over relationships.

I was bothered by the Li & Fung story. Suppliers able to contract and expand on demand? The economist made a nice assertion, but there was nothing to back it up. And putting a middleman between buyer and seller? How can you ever develop relationships? In a world where a toy manufacturer’s paint supplier’s pigment supplier can cause millions of dollars of expense and an an untold amount of reputation damage, buyers need to meet, understand and build relationships with several layers of their supply chain.

 

I did note that Li & Fung’s primary market was fashion and consumer goods. Clothing is built to old fashioned quality standards, with AQL plans still the norm for quality mangement. Buyers are willing to accept lots with 10’s of thousands of out of spec goods per million. That method of quality management isn’t adequate for most other industries.

Actually, it’s perception vs. reality. Point vs. CounterPoint is when there are, theoretically, two equally valid ways to approach a public issue. What we’re doing is addressing a perceived reality and either affirming it or denying it, so that, at the end of the post, a buyer can make not just a truly informed decision, but the right one. (Which, in this case, is a focus on the core principals of supply management: better strategy, better contracts, and better relationships.)

Thanks, Dick! (Global Supply Training)

Share This on Linked In

b-pack: Packing It In for A Brave New World, Part I

Who says the French aren’t revolutionary anymore? Last year, Ivalua decided to cross the Atlantic to try and conquer the North American procurement market. Now, short on their heels, b-pack, a company that’s also been around for 10 years, and which also has a large number of clients (across 20 industries they have over 80 clients), has also made the crossing in their effort to conquer what they call the “purchase-to-pay and process optimization” marketplace. But, most importantly, like Ivalua, b-pack also has one of the broadest e-Procurement suites on the market.

Just when you thought the e-Procurment market was getting stale (and with the exception of Coupa — who seem to have their head in the clouds lately, it has been pretty unexciting for the past year or two), along come the French who are determined to bring another bohemian revolution to the world of Procurement and P2P with extensive solutions that actually close the loop!

Realizing that it’s more than just requisitions, catalogs, and invoices, and that standalone systems that do not take you from procurement through purchase through receipt, payment and supplier management to begin the cycle anew, offer little in the way of value, b-pack brings with it a suite of solutions that take you from the start of a traditional sourcing cycle (RFx), through a contract, to a requisition (which may be from a catalog), against a budget, to receipt (which can include asset tracking information), and an invoice, to payment, reporting, and supplier management. And it has a number of supporting modules that are unique compared to most of the competition (but that will be the subject of the next post).

The solution can be delivered as a traditional behind-the-firewall solution, as a traditional hosted ASP solution, or as a cloud-based service (new version only) and can be deployed out-of-the-box or it can be custom configured (and extended) by b-pack, who have designed the solution on top of a configurable workflow management engine and who have a decade of experience customizing solutions for their clients, which include La Poste and Danone (Blédina).

We’ll start with the foundational modules — catalogs, requisitions, budgeting, receiving, invoicing, and reporting — since that’s the functionality that you need day in and day out, and since everything else depends upon the raw data collected in the basic P2P process. All of the functional modules are tightly integrated and accessed through the user’s home page, which maintains the user’s to-do list.

Requisitions are straight forward. You create a new document, give it a priority, define a needed-by date, select the company, cost centre, and ship to location, and then select your items. Items can be selected from commodity catalogs, custom catalogs, or user defined entries, and can be bought against a contract in the system or off-contract. If the requisition is within the buyer’s spending limit, a purchase order is automatically generated, if not, it goes to the designated approver. Once approved, a PDF purchase order is created which can be automatically sent to the supplier if e-orders are permitted, and, if not, printed and faxed. If the supplier is e-enabled, the system will automatically record the supplier’s confirmation of receipt. When the goods arrive, receipt can be recorded against the purchase order, and when all the goods have been received, the purchase order can be marked as closed.

When the invoice is received, it is recorded in the system. It can be received electronically if the supplier supports the right protocol, or manually entered by the recipient. The invoice is then automatically matched against the PO, and if discrepancies are detected, the user is immediately notified (who can initiate a dispute to correct the invoice). If not, the invoice can be marked for payment, and once paid, closed.

Once a payment is made, the user’s budget totals are updated, which tracks the total amount the user has spent, invoiced, ordered, and requested against her budget for the period. All of this information is immediately available to the user and her supervisor(s) through the budget reports.

Reporting allows the user to query purchase orders, invoices, budgets, and contracts (which are indexed by metadata and record relevant product and service information) at any time (and for any time period, or set of) at user, department, and company level. And in addition to tracking all of the users, departments, and company units (NA, Europe, Asia, etc.), the system also maintains all of the relationships which allows it to automatically generate workflows (for approvals and routings) and rollups for financial reporting purposes.

In other words, the foundations are precisely what you’d expect from a modern P2P solution that attempts to close the loop. In the next post we’ll dive into b-pack’s supplementary models that offer some more powerful, and unique, features that bring value above and beyond that which is normally offered through a basic P2P platform.

Share This on Linked In

Alcatel Blames Parts Shortage for Steep Loss

Editor’s Note: Today’s post is from Dick Locke, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on International Sourcing and Procurement. (His previous guest posts are still archived.)

Here’s a headline supply managers don’t want to see about their own company:

Alcatel Blames Parts Shortage for Steep Loss

(New York Times, May 7, 2010)

Alcatel Lucent, which makes network equipment for AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, said Thursday that the U.S. economic recovery was accelerating so rapidly it was unable to obtain enough basic electronic parts to meet the demand of U.S. operators.

Alcatel cites supply problems as the key reason their sales declined by nearly 10 percent.

There are so many high level, advanced efforts going on in supply chain integration that it’s easy to lose sight of the basics. The most basic element of a supply strategy is assurance of supply of proper quality parts.

I see a parallel between Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs and supply management needs. It’s also known as the Maslow pyramid. Maslow believed that unless needs at lower levels of the pyramid were met, higher level needs would not be considered or addressed. I\His most basic needs were physiological. His highest need was “self actualization”. To put it simply, he said it’s hard to worry about making friends if you can’t get enough oxygen. Similarly, it’s hard to develop advanced supply management programs such as collaborative R&D, technological road mapping, quality improvement programs or lead time reduction if you can’t get enough parts to keep your lines running.

I put assurance of supply at the bottom of the supply chain need hierarchy. What’s at the top? I believe it’s the ability of the supplier to see through your need pyramid and recognize they are part of your customer’s supply chain, and to cooperate with you on meeting your customer’s needs.

What went wrong at Alcatel? I can hypothesize based on my experience as an electronic component commodity manager. The industry is characterized by wild swings between a buyers’ market and sellers’ market that last for a few years. There’s about 20 minutes of equilibrium during the transition. A lot of the ability to maintain supply when demand increases depends on the relationship the buying company maintains with their supply base during the buyers’ market.

If I were a forensic examiner I would look at how Alcatel treated their suppliers during the downturn. I know what we did and it was successful: We put in place major improvements in our ability to forecast to suppliers. We pressed hard on quality improvement programs, something our good suppliers wanted to do anyway. We got strong commitments from our suppliers not to lengthen lead time in an upturn. We didn’t alter our price renegotiation schedule so we didn’t seem to be taking advantage of the suppliers’ difficulties. In hindsight, that resulted in paying more than we had to during a downturn and less than we would have had to during an upturn. Also, (did I mention this?) we had sufficient supply at short lead times when the market turned.

Thanks, Dick. (Global Supply Training)

Share This on Linked In