Category Archives: Supply Chain

Supplier Management Must Be Continuous AND Proactive Throughout the Supply Chain!

Xavier recently wrote a great article over on Hackket Spend Matters on how you must treat Supplier management as a continuous signal because it points out that while traditional supplier management worked well when supplier ecosystems were smaller and more stable, it does not scale well in today’s operating reality.

As Xavier points out:

  • risk does not neatly emerge during onboarding, it accumulates through behavior over time and
  • risk changes continuously with performance and fitness as
  • pricing behaviour shifts, reliability degrades, dispute frequency increases, payment anomalies appear, and compliance exposure evolves with regulation

And this is not captured by periodic reviews.

However, just continuously capturing the updates that flow through the P2P system (from POs, receipts, invoices, payments, and disputes) is not enough for continuous management and monitoring. As per above, you need to be monitoring for regulatory compliance changes that can impact the supplier or the relationship. You need to be capturing returns and issues in the warehouse and with service for performance. And you have to be tracking the identified risks.

But that’s not enough. You have to get into the supply chain.

  • pricing behaviour shifts with supply chain events — supply gets caught off, transportation becomes scarce, the Tariff King decrees new tariffs, etc.
  • on time delivery and lead time reliability shifts with carrier availability which shifts with overall demand, geopolitical events, labour availability, and the current price of oil
  • payment issues arrive AFTER impact events (loss of a major customer, supply shortages, major financial loss from a lawsuit or natural disaster, etc.)
  • etc.

There’s a reason the doctor co-authored a series with Bob Ferrari on why Direct Sourcing Should Be Part of Supply Chain Management, and that’s because if you’re not tapped into the supply chain, you’re not getting all the signals you need to manage suppliers.

Because it’s not just the supplier signals, it’s the supply chain signals that will, in short order, impact the suppliers and their ability to serve you. This includes border closings, strikes that shut down docks and ports, natural disaster that cut off entire regions and disrupt flows, and geopolitics that have sweeping implications globally and that’s why, as Koray Köse says, Geopolitics Now Lives Inside the P&L.

So integrate with your supply chain, or realize that you’re still operating in a static bubble when the world is a very dynamic one and that if the static bubble pops when you’re unprepared, your supply chain pops with it and then you’re in trouble.

Tired of Geopolitical Chaos? You Wouldn’t Be if You Were Prepared!

In a recent article, Koray Köse pointed out that Geopolitics Now Lives in the P&L because it can re-price your inputs, trap working capital, and./or change who you are allowed to buy from or sell to, all with the stroke of a pen by a single individual entrusted with too much power.

And, as Koray points out, most organizations are structurally unprepared. This is partially because fewer than half of companies have visibility beyond tier-one suppliers, but mostly because the majority of organizations have to scramble and allocate resources to figure out whether or not the event has changed cost, liquidity, access, or structural dependency.

And, as Koray points out, organizations that don’t know what the real impact of major events on them are will:

  • panic dual- (or tri-) source and increase cost without reducing real risk (as sometimes they’ll source from another distributor or supplier with the same risk in the same region subject to the same events)
  • knee-jerk re-shore, waste 18 to 36 months, and increase costs without addressing the core issue
  • sign emergency renewals at premiums for risks that never materialize
  • continually react in a manner that achieves nothing

and, simply, burn time and value by not doubling down focus on the events that really matter to them. Because they don’t know what those events are.

That’s because they haven’t

  • identified their key product lines,
  • broken them down into components,
  • identified those that have limited supply items or rely on rare earths or other limited substances,
  • mapped the supply chains for those limited items, rare earths, or other limited substances, and
  • marked the supply chains they (and their current suppliers) are currently using

so that, when their constant 24/7/365 global monitoring solution detects a significant event, they can quickly determine

  • what active supply chains it impacts,
  • what substances, rare earths, or items could be impacted,
  • to what extent they are relying on those substances, rare earths, or items,
  • what components they are in,
  • what product lines are impacted and to what degree, and
  • what alternatives the organization has

This way you instantly know

  • what the impact is,
  • what other options you have, and
  • what the cost of those would be

If the event impacts a supply that is easily obtainable from other, unaffected regions; that is only used in a couple of low revenue (and lower profit) product lines, or that can be replaced simply by shifting supply to other suppliers with which you have existing relationships (and contracts), you can simply ignore it; but if the event could cut off a key substance, rare earth, or part, and you were sole sourcing, you need to leap into action immediately to contract another source of supply (before your competition does and its gone).

The only way you can do this is if you did a proper risk assessment of each major component, raw material, and item, and tracked your current and potential sourcing options. i.e. you did proper risk mitigation planning.

But if you take the time to do proper category assessment and risk mitigation planning, you’ll be well on your way to Köse’s Sophisticated Simplicity that will allow you to identify the one or two events that really matter, address those, and get on with business while the world burns around you. (Or, you can continue to react blindly and burn with it. Your choice. Either way, follow Koray. You can’t manage supply without being aware of what threatens it.)

The Future of Business is … Customer Centric Supply Chains!

Phil Fersht of HFS Research recently did a great LinkedIn post summarizing a fascinating conversation with Malcolm Frank that summarized a few key takeaways, including the following:

For 25 years, IT services optimized SG&A instead of transforming cost of goods sold. AI changes that. The real value now sits in agentic, vertical, customer-facing transformation, not back-office efficiency.

Customer-facing transformation is definitely where the value is in a global economy that is (borderline) recessionary, with joblessness and insecurity increasing by the day, and most people having less (and less) to spend on non-essentials and essentials alike. If you want their business, especially if your product or service is discretionary, it needs to be what they want. With constantly crushing weights on their shoulders, they need products that make them feel good, that make them feel like they are being listened to and catered too, that were created for consumer use (and not for the use by the atypical person in the lab who created something just for them), etc. The companies that deliver those will be the big winners, not the ones that still follow the old Ford Mantra (where you can have any colour you want as long as it’s black).

However, it’s not just creating the product that the customers want because IF you can’t deliver the goods at a price point the majority of your customers can afford and will pay in tight/recessionary economies, then you won’t sell any product at all!

We all need to remember that COGS was always a proxy, as it was easy for the accountants to measure, the same way we use revenue as a proxy for determining if a company is an appropriate target for our software and services. In Procurement, it’s not revenue — it’s how much spend is external, how much we can actually manage (retailers can have large leases that make up a significant portion of external spend which Procurement can’t do a thing about), and how many categories are big enough to give us leverage or real options when sourcing that can lead to savings, quality improvements, more resilience, etc.

This means that the future of business is about two things:

  1. tailoring to customers (because we’re long beyond you can have any colour you want as long as its black) to maximize the amount they will pay (to the point they can pay), which Phil astutely noted in his post and
  2. (dynamically) re-configuring the supply chains (as needed) to offer the products at profitable price points based on what the majority of the market will pay

So this would mean it’s simultaneously optimizing the product mix for customer adoption while ensuring the supply chains are ready to serve and re-optimizing them as needed.

As was noted, at the end of the day, back-office costs are pretty insignificant compared to supply chain costs and increased profits from increased price points that create a product that maximizes what a customer will pay (because the product is precisely what the customer wants, and not a product that is simply close enough that it might work for them).

How to Do “Predictions” Right!

I just finished my dangerous procurement predictions series, where I pointed out 15 of the most dangerous predictions made by the influencers trying to get clicks with sensationalism, whether or not their predictions had any grounding in the real world, and whether or not acceptance of those predictions would lead to disastrous decisions on your part.

And while the majority of annual prediction posts now fall into these first categories, there are still a few, by the old timers, that are done right where they look at where things are, what is happening, and where they are likely to go based on trends and pattern similarity to what came before. (You know, that thing called history that everyone seems to have forgotten about in the AI age that is destined to make the dot com bust look like a tiny blip.)

One example is Bob Ferrari’s Supply Chain Matters post.

Prediction

“The true effects of increased tariffs, U.S. trade policy shifts and the nationalization of supply networks will become more impactful in 2026.”

Prediction Background

“We had predicted that businesses would be compelled toward executing various forms of China Plus sourcing strategies as a response to increasing trade conflict, significant disruptions and needs for added increased supply network resiliency.”

“In December 2025, business broadcasting network CNBC cited data published by Wells Fargo Supply Chain Finance that indicates that since the initial Trump Administration trade conflict, supply chain sourcing diversification has gradually increased away from China and toward the South Asia Pacific region.”

i.e. he looked at the real world situation, and then identified the most logical response … and then followed the market with respect to that response, captured the data, and re-analyzed his position

Tactical Implications

“In 2026, the implications of increased tariff will be manifested in higher working capital costs and increased product pricing among various US and global based manufacturers and suppliers.”

Long Term Strategic Implications

“Our prediction is that within a two to three year window, the effects of U.S. trade policy will lead to a pronounced transition toward more regional focused product demand and supply networks.”

Furthermore, “what eventually comes of the USMCA trade agreement will have fundamental strategic implications for shifts in North America product demand and supply network frameworks.”

Implications for Strategic Sourcing and Procurement Organizations

“Supply chain management teams can no longer focus solely on functionally stovepipe driven key performance and decision-making capabilities nor on singularly focused technology enablement. The organizational implication is one of an end-to-end leadership, goal alignment, and technology enablement perspective.”

i.e. he worked out the short term tactical and long term strategic implications of the developing situation and indicated what leading organizations need to do to survive the turmoil

That’s what a prediction should be — what the reality is likely to be and what an organization needs to do based on that.

Not some whimsical fantasy designed to spread FUD and generate clicks.

Great work Bob!

This post first appeared on LinkedIn.

Logistics is in BIGGER Trouble.

There’s been a truck driver shortage for almost two decades. I remember writing on the estimated shortage of 240K drivers back in 2013.

Moreover, with so many drivers being immigrants or cross-border drivers from Mexico, and the immigration crackdown in the US, it’s only become much worse, as chronicled yet again in the latest #HFSResearch piece.

However, I don’t think their answer of autonomous fleets in the answer. The tech isn’t there yet (as even Tesla can’t deliver fully reliable and safe autonomous vehicles yet, and it’s been working on them the longest in North America), half the states don’t even support testing of such vehicles yet, and, as always with new tech, we’re one bad accident away (as a result of rushed trials) from a major backlash that will stall progress for a decade.

I think it’s time we look back and take lessons from history (which I know most of my American colleagues have forgotten, or you wouldn’t be so enamoured with your current administration that is looking to the 1930s for its administrative policy and looking to the 1880s for its industrial policy), and remember the beginnings of trade. It was horse and carriage (well, mule-and-wagon or donkey-and-wagon) until we got the first cargo ship, which could move mass cargo by sea. Great for port cities, not so great for inland cities. Then the train was invented, and that revolutionized transport (and then travel). Locomotives quickly became more and more powerful, standardized tracks allowed them to run coast to coast, and up to 200 cars of cargo and people could be carried at once, especially if multiple locomotives are used. TWO HUNDRED RAIL CARS.

A flatbed rail car can be up to 89′ in length and 10′ wide.

A standard cargo container, used on ships, is 20′ x ‘8 or 40′ x 8’. A properly engineered flatbed rail car can hold two long or four short containers.

A typical long haul transport truck today is 53′ x 8’6″ (x 13’6″ high). No reason the trailer can’t be replaced with a specially designed 42′ x 8’6″ flatbed that could lock and load a standard 40′ container or that automated systems to lock and unlock couldn’t be designed to easily allow movement between both ships and rail cars AND between both rail cars and trucks. This would considerably shorten the distance that 400 containers (200 flatbeds x 2 containers each) would need to be transported across American roads, and significantly free up the availability of 400 drivers per train (and corresponding lane).

An average long-haul route in the US is 500 miles+! (With many routes up to 800 miles, or more).

An average short-haul route in the US is closer to 150 miles.

Long haul trucking could be reduced by 2/3 if rail was used more and all routes were short haul! Considering long-haul trucking accounts for about 200 Billion miles a year in the US, that’s 120 Billion miles that can be freed up, which greatly reduces the driver need! (If a driver drove 60 miles/hour for 50 weeks a year, that’s 120K miles.) In fact, it reduces the need by almost 100K drivers! It might not solve the entire problem, but it would be a huge dent!

It’s time we start looking back as well as forward if we want to solve the problems of today!

The reality is that over 500 BILLION miles of annual trucking is just too much! Almost 73% of freight by weight should NOT be moving by inefficient truck transport! Trucking.org has some good, and scary, statistics.

This post first appeared in a slightly abbreviated form on LinkedIn.