Posts
A relatively new software-based technology—product life cycle management (PLM)—has been adopted by numerous manufacturers because it allows the collaborative design of products from anywhere in the world. Developers can tap into a central workspace and get access to part designs, bills of material, product specifications, production schedules, and other data. PLM includes elements of earlier computer-based technologies, such as computer-aided design, engineering, and manufacturing (CAD/CAE/CAM), as well as product data management (PDM), but PLM is much more of a supply chain solution because it allows the sharing of product information not only throughout a company's many offices but throughout the offices of supply chain partners and suppliers as well.
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, for instance, is a prime example of supply chain collaboration. This multibillion-dollar initiative to build a next-generation aircraft for both the American and British militaries includes Lockheed Martin as the lead contractor and fellow aerospace and defense manufacturers Northrop Grumman (U.S.), BAE Systems (U.K.), and Fokker (Netherlands) as major subcontractors. Product experts from these companies can tap into Lockheed's virtual workspace platform to work on their own piece of this massive international project. As many as 1,500 engineers can access the virtual workspace as heavy users, and another 3,000 can tap into it on a more limited basis.
Product life cycle management (PLM) technology enables manufacturers to manage and share complex design and production information across an extended enterprise, with the goal of streamlining the product development process.
Like aerospace companies, automotive and high-tech manufacturers have also been early adopters of PLM software because of the complex nature of their production process. However, given the increasing importance of developing new products and getting them to market as quickly as possible, consumer packaged goods and pharmaceutical companies have also turned to PLM as a supply chain best practice because, when properly deployed and managed, it can help reduce costs while increasing efficiency. Here are some examples:
Playtex Products, a manufacturer of personal care consumer products, outsources 70 percent of its manufacturing to seven facilities throughout North America. Tracking document routing and product record data was increasingly difficult because this information was maintained on any number of electronic systems, or in some cases, on paper. By standardizing on a common PLM platform, Playtex enjoyed a 98 percent improvement in its document routing time. Time-to-market improved significantly as well, contributing in part to added revenues in the neighborhood of $20 million annually.
Regulatory requirements from the FDA as well as legal bodies in Europe have become more demanding for pharmaceutical manufacturers such as Roche Diagnostics. Roche was having difficulty stepping up its quality management processes because its quality data were scattered among a dozen nonintegrated systems, with much of that information being shared via fax machines rather than over a computer network. By implementing a PLM solution throughout the company, Roche has been able to automate its documentation process, which helps the company manage its growing product lines as well as satisfy the government audits.
At Eaton's Hydraulics Division, a maker of hydraulic products for farm and construction machinery, it frequently took up to 10 days to distribute CAD files throughout the company. The process began with the transfer of completed drawings to microfilm, which were then sent to the main library and duplicated so they could be sent to other sites' libraries. Not only did it take too long, but the error rate was as high as 6 percent at some of the libraries. A PLM solution capable of storing and retrieving more than 70,000 imaged documents has not only made the microfilming system obsolete, but it has also shaved the wait time from 10 days down to a mere three hours.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Six-Sigma - Motorola's Learns to Measure Quality
Supply chain manufacturing concepts often seem to emerge fully formed out of nowhere, and while there have been numerous short-lived trends du jour, in reality the legitimate best practices have gestated for many years, sometimes for decades. There's nothing new about lean manufacturing or the Toyota Production System, for example, even though they're currently popular buzzwords. The TPS, after all, emerged in Japan shortly after World War II ended, and in fact was based on concepts popularized even earlier in the twentieth century by Henry Ford. So even though lean is at the top of many people's minds these days, the only thing truly new about lean is the acceptance it's finally gained in the United States.
Another manufacturing concept that is frequently associated with lean is Six Sigma, a structured, quality-centric approach to manufacturing. It began at Motorola in the 1980s as a way of improving the quality and reliability of its products, which would enable the company to deliver a consistently high level of customer service. Based on quality initiatives developed by the Japanese, Motorola's Six Sigma program—like the TPS—involved every employee in the company.
Six Sigma is a measure of quality that strives for near perfection, which is defined as no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities.
Motorola learned from the Japanese that "simpler designs result in higher levels of quality and reliability," explains consultant Alan Larson, a divisional quality director at Motorola when Six Sigma was launched. The company also learned that it needed to improve manufacturing techniques "to ensure that products were built right the first time."
The term Six Sigma refers to the idea of near perfection, defined as six standard deviations between the mean and the nearest specification limit. In practice, this means a product or process can have no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Six Sigma, like the SCOR Model, focuses on five areas: define, measure, analyze, improve, and control. Six Sigma programs typically use statistical process control (SPC) tools to monitor, control, and improve a product or process through statistical analysis.
To achieve the desired result of enabling continuous improvement, rather than merely putting a temporary bandage on a problem, Larson recommends that every department, group, and unit within a company complete the following six steps:
* Identify the product you create or the service you provide.
* Identify your customers, and determine the customers' needs.
* Identify your suppliers and what you need from them.
* Define your process for doing the work.
* Establish metrics for measuring the goodness of your process and feedback mechanisms to determine customer satisfaction.
* Ensure continuous improvement by establishing a team that measures, analyzes, and completes focused action items.
Proponents of the Six Sigma approach typically cite its lack of ambiguity as a major plus. The Six Sigma methodology applies a mathematical precision to what might otherwise be highly imprecise supply chain processes. A corollary benefit comes when a company insists on getting commitment from every employee, and requiring everybody to focus on the better good for the entire supply chain.
"Getting our business units to accept change has been accelerated because we're talking a common language and common methodology through Six Sigma," observes Lori Schock, site supply manager with Dow Corning, a manufacturer of silicone-based products. "It removes the doubting Thomas attitude because it is a common process based on facts."
Srinivasan' s 14 Lean Principles
Lean is not a quick fix. When 771 managers and executives were asked by the Lean Enterprise Institute to identify the biggest obstacle to implementing lean at their companies, nearly half (48 percent) said it was, "backsliding to the old ways of working." It's also revealing to note that when asked how far along they were with their lean implementations, more than half (53 percent) characterized their companies as being in the early stages. So while a lot of lip service is being paid to the idea of lean manufacturing, there remains a sizable gap on the execution end.
Lean manufacturing is a management philosophy focused on eliminating waste, reducing inventory, and increasing profitability.
As a result, companies continue to seek guidance in how exactly a lean operation should be set up, and just as importantly, how to maintain it. Mandyam Srinivasan, a professor with the University of Tennessee, has identified 14 principles that companies should follow to build and manage lean supply chains:
1. Measure any improvements in subsystem performance by weighing their impact on the whole system.
2. Focus on improving the performance of the lean supply chain, but do not ignore the supply chain's business ecosystem.
3. Focus on customer needs and process considerations when designing a product.
4. Maintain inventories in an undifferentiated (unfinished) form for as long as it is economically feasible to do so.
5. Buffer variation in demand with capacity, not inventory.
6. Use forecasts to plan and pull to execute.
7. Build strategic partnerships and alliances with members of the supply chain, with the goal of reducing the total cost of providing goods and services.
8. Design products and processes to promote strategic flexibility.
9. Develop performance measures that allow the enterprise to better align functions and move from a functional to a process orientation.
10. Reduce time lost at a bottleneck resource, which results in a loss of productivity for the entire supply chain. Time saved at a non-bottleneck resource is a mirage.
11. Make decisions that promote a growth strategy and focus on improving throughput.
12. Synchronize flow by first scheduling the bottleneck resources on the most productive products, then schedule non-bottleneck resources to support the bottleneck resources.
13. Don't focus on balancing capacities—focus on synchronizing the flow.
14. Reduce variation in the system, which will allow the supply chain to generate higher throughput with lower inventory and lower operating expense.
Lean manufacturing is a management philosophy focused on eliminating waste, reducing inventory, and increasing profitability.
As a result, companies continue to seek guidance in how exactly a lean operation should be set up, and just as importantly, how to maintain it. Mandyam Srinivasan, a professor with the University of Tennessee, has identified 14 principles that companies should follow to build and manage lean supply chains:
1. Measure any improvements in subsystem performance by weighing their impact on the whole system.
2. Focus on improving the performance of the lean supply chain, but do not ignore the supply chain's business ecosystem.
3. Focus on customer needs and process considerations when designing a product.
4. Maintain inventories in an undifferentiated (unfinished) form for as long as it is economically feasible to do so.
5. Buffer variation in demand with capacity, not inventory.
6. Use forecasts to plan and pull to execute.
7. Build strategic partnerships and alliances with members of the supply chain, with the goal of reducing the total cost of providing goods and services.
8. Design products and processes to promote strategic flexibility.
9. Develop performance measures that allow the enterprise to better align functions and move from a functional to a process orientation.
10. Reduce time lost at a bottleneck resource, which results in a loss of productivity for the entire supply chain. Time saved at a non-bottleneck resource is a mirage.
11. Make decisions that promote a growth strategy and focus on improving throughput.
12. Synchronize flow by first scheduling the bottleneck resources on the most productive products, then schedule non-bottleneck resources to support the bottleneck resources.
13. Don't focus on balancing capacities—focus on synchronizing the flow.
14. Reduce variation in the system, which will allow the supply chain to generate higher throughput with lower inventory and lower operating expense.
Lean without Silos
To Tom McMillen, director of global logistics with automaker General Motors, implementing lean practices is a continuing adventure. The company is constantly coming up with new ways to optimize its supply network and remove waste in the process of moving parts from its suppliers to a GM assembly plant. "Throughout our organization, lean practices allow us to reduce inventory in plants and streamline business practices. The benefit is more efficiency and productivity in our supply chain."
Taking the supply chain view is the approach Toyota has taken all along, but it's a difficult lesson for many American manufacturers. In the past, too many companies have looked upon the Toyota Production System (TPS) model—the definitive lean manufacturing model—as a departmental solution suitable only for the plant floor and the production line, observes Jim Matheson, a professor with Stanford University. What's more, this short-sighted thinking comes despite Toyota's insistence that lean should be embraced at the enterprise level to guide future growth from senior management levels on down.
The TPS is based on the concept of continuous improvement, which is reinforced by a corporate culture that empowers employees to improve their work environment. "Things that are running smoothly should not be subject to any control," observes Teruyuki Minoura, a senior managing director of Toyota Motor Corp. "If you commit yourself to just finding and fixing problems, you'll be able to carry out effective control on your lines with fewer personnel." That presupposes an environment where people have to think, which is why Minoura says the "T" in TPS can also stand for "Thinking."
The success Toyota and other automotive companies have achieved with lean techniques is being monitored by other industries as well. For instance, Moen, a manufacturer of plumbing products, has studied world-class lean operations with the intent of introducing lean practices and standardizing work within its manufacturing facilities. "We're trying to find the best fit for our operation and determine how much change we can bring about within our organization, and how quickly," says Scott Saunders, Moen's vice president of global supply chain.
Part of that change is being accomplished by having teams determine the best manufacturing processes, document those processes, train each other on those processes, and then implement a plan where they all agree to follow those processes. It's easier to run lean in a self-contained plant, Saunders admits, so it's important to get input from operations managers as to the best way to do the work. Running lean throughout the supply chain, which is where Moen expects to enjoy the most benefits, requires evaluating every step within the manufacturing cycle.
Taking the supply chain view is the approach Toyota has taken all along, but it's a difficult lesson for many American manufacturers. In the past, too many companies have looked upon the Toyota Production System (TPS) model—the definitive lean manufacturing model—as a departmental solution suitable only for the plant floor and the production line, observes Jim Matheson, a professor with Stanford University. What's more, this short-sighted thinking comes despite Toyota's insistence that lean should be embraced at the enterprise level to guide future growth from senior management levels on down.
The TPS is based on the concept of continuous improvement, which is reinforced by a corporate culture that empowers employees to improve their work environment. "Things that are running smoothly should not be subject to any control," observes Teruyuki Minoura, a senior managing director of Toyota Motor Corp. "If you commit yourself to just finding and fixing problems, you'll be able to carry out effective control on your lines with fewer personnel." That presupposes an environment where people have to think, which is why Minoura says the "T" in TPS can also stand for "Thinking."
The success Toyota and other automotive companies have achieved with lean techniques is being monitored by other industries as well. For instance, Moen, a manufacturer of plumbing products, has studied world-class lean operations with the intent of introducing lean practices and standardizing work within its manufacturing facilities. "We're trying to find the best fit for our operation and determine how much change we can bring about within our organization, and how quickly," says Scott Saunders, Moen's vice president of global supply chain.
Part of that change is being accomplished by having teams determine the best manufacturing processes, document those processes, train each other on those processes, and then implement a plan where they all agree to follow those processes. It's easier to run lean in a self-contained plant, Saunders admits, so it's important to get input from operations managers as to the best way to do the work. Running lean throughout the supply chain, which is where Moen expects to enjoy the most benefits, requires evaluating every step within the manufacturing cycle.
Silos & Supply Chains - Part 3
When aerospace manufacturer Boeing committed itself to lean manufacturing, it sent teams of workers to various automotive plants around the world to learn the best manufacturing practices from companies such as Porsche and Volkswagen. The aerospace industry is considerably more parts-intensive and labor-intensive than the automotive industry—a typical jet has more than 3 million parts—but Boeing still learned plenty about job scheduling and just-in-time manufacturing. Those lessons have been put to good use in streamlining what is arguably the most complex manufacturing supply chain in the world.
Boeing has been devoted to lean principles since the early 1990s, and one of the company's key goals has been to eliminate waste and the costs associated with it, whether it's wasted time, wasted production materials, wasted labor, or wasted money To reach that goal, the company has substantially reduced its supply base (down by 65 percent since 2000), and now partners only with those suppliers that can provide the best in terms of capability, quality, delivery performance, and collaboration, explains Nonna Clayton, vice president of supplier management for Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems group.
Boeing's lean consultants work directly with suppliers and train them so they can implement lean on their own, Clayton notes. Additionally, suppliers are encouraged to attend lean conferences and symposiums, as well as participate in manufacturing extension partnerships where available. Through a process known as value stream mapping, Boeing has been able to reduce its procurement costs while helping its suppliers identify areas where they can drive out costs as well. With value stream mapping, a company begins by defining the current state of how a process is being done. Then it focuses on where it wants to be and identifies areas of improvement that will bring about that desired state. Using this process, one cable supplier to Boeing has been able to cut assembly time by 44 percent while increasing productivity by 27 percent. It's all part of Boeing's program goal of keeping the flow of information, requirements, products, and services free of waste. In that situation, everybody in the supply chain ends up a winner.
Boeing has been devoted to lean principles since the early 1990s, and one of the company's key goals has been to eliminate waste and the costs associated with it, whether it's wasted time, wasted production materials, wasted labor, or wasted money To reach that goal, the company has substantially reduced its supply base (down by 65 percent since 2000), and now partners only with those suppliers that can provide the best in terms of capability, quality, delivery performance, and collaboration, explains Nonna Clayton, vice president of supplier management for Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems group.
Boeing's lean consultants work directly with suppliers and train them so they can implement lean on their own, Clayton notes. Additionally, suppliers are encouraged to attend lean conferences and symposiums, as well as participate in manufacturing extension partnerships where available. Through a process known as value stream mapping, Boeing has been able to reduce its procurement costs while helping its suppliers identify areas where they can drive out costs as well. With value stream mapping, a company begins by defining the current state of how a process is being done. Then it focuses on where it wants to be and identifies areas of improvement that will bring about that desired state. Using this process, one cable supplier to Boeing has been able to cut assembly time by 44 percent while increasing productivity by 27 percent. It's all part of Boeing's program goal of keeping the flow of information, requirements, products, and services free of waste. In that situation, everybody in the supply chain ends up a winner.
Silos & Supply Chains - Part 2
Dell's strategy hinges on having visibility into the latest supply and demand trends. The company posts its hub-level inventory on the Web, enabling suppliers to check their inventory levels at the hubs, since materials suppliers aren't necessarily the same set of companies as those at the hub. Dell issues forecasts through its supplier extranet, and suppliers commit back to Dell, based on those forecasts. Dell then works from that information, covering any deviations from what it asks for against what a supplier or a set of suppliers can promise.
Suppliers maintain inventory in their hub facilities located near Dell's assembly plants. Dell sends orders to the suppliers on a rolling basis, and factory-scheduling software generates material requirements every two hours per facility. Those requirements get posted to Dell's supplier Web site, and the hubs then pick, pack, and ship the materials to Dell for the next two hours of production. The result is a built-to-order computer.
"The more we know about the capabilities of the supply chain and our suppliers, the better decisions we're going to make for our customers," Hunter observes. In practice, that sometimes means that Dell makes a better choice for a customer than it does for itself, at least for the short term. Lean manufacturing experts James P. Womack and Daniel T Jones have observed that there is "a logical disconnect" between what Dell does for its customers and what it ought to be doing for them based on cost effectiveness.
"Because the short-term spikes in demand can be several times long-term demand and extra capacity is very costly, it is not practical for Dell to maintain enough capacity to respond instantly to every swing in the market," Womack and Jones explain. To be able to respond to individual consumers who want their own customized computer at a good price, then, Dell tries to create customer demand by changing the prices on optional features or even entire systems based on how many or few of any given item the company has.
What sometimes happens, though, is a consumer will request a system that includes components Dell doesn't have readily on hand. Rather than requisitioning a part that might have to be shipped via air freight (by far the most expensive transportation mode), the computer maker will instead substitute an upgraded component it has in stock. The consumer gets a better computer, though the wait for the system will be longer than originally expected. In effect, Dell will take a loss on the cost of the components if it can save on transportation costs and in the process keep a customer happy. And it's been Dell's ability to "cost-effectively supply exactly what its customers want" that has made its supply chain best-in-class.
IBM Corp., another computer industry leader, spends roughly 50 cents of every dollar of revenue on its supply chain, which based on 2005 sales of $91 billion, represents a supply chain spend of $45.5 billion. Big Blue refers to its on-demand supply chain, which Nick Donofrio, executive vice president of innovation and technology, explains is one that can sense and respond to customers' demands and to changes in the marketplace—no matter how frequent and sudden.
"In the past, manufacturing was a rather isolated activity," Donofrio says. "It was located at or near the end of the supply chain. The manufacturing team didn't get involved in anything until after the product had been designed and developed, the planning and forecasting had been done, and the customer had placed the order. That model is history. It will never suffice for today's customers who demand instantaneous response to their inquiries. What's required now is the complete integration of manufacturing into the overall supply chain, as well as the integration of the overall supply chain itself."
IBM's transformation to an on-demand model didn't happen overnight. A key factor in its integration was a razor-close examination of how an order moves throughout its system. "We looked at how we could integrate logistics and inventory, and what we needed to purchase from suppliers," Donofrio explains. "By embracing the e-business model, we were able to deploy capabilities that would increase efficiency of our supply chain, and strengthen our relationships with our suppliers and customers. We were able to link customer-facing systems, such as order entry, order scheduling, and confirmation, to the supply-facing systems that drive procurement, warehousing, manufacturing, distribution, and invoicing." In short, IBM now ties together all of the relevant "plan, source, make, deliver, and return" elements of its supply chain.
Suppliers maintain inventory in their hub facilities located near Dell's assembly plants. Dell sends orders to the suppliers on a rolling basis, and factory-scheduling software generates material requirements every two hours per facility. Those requirements get posted to Dell's supplier Web site, and the hubs then pick, pack, and ship the materials to Dell for the next two hours of production. The result is a built-to-order computer.
"The more we know about the capabilities of the supply chain and our suppliers, the better decisions we're going to make for our customers," Hunter observes. In practice, that sometimes means that Dell makes a better choice for a customer than it does for itself, at least for the short term. Lean manufacturing experts James P. Womack and Daniel T Jones have observed that there is "a logical disconnect" between what Dell does for its customers and what it ought to be doing for them based on cost effectiveness.
"Because the short-term spikes in demand can be several times long-term demand and extra capacity is very costly, it is not practical for Dell to maintain enough capacity to respond instantly to every swing in the market," Womack and Jones explain. To be able to respond to individual consumers who want their own customized computer at a good price, then, Dell tries to create customer demand by changing the prices on optional features or even entire systems based on how many or few of any given item the company has.
What sometimes happens, though, is a consumer will request a system that includes components Dell doesn't have readily on hand. Rather than requisitioning a part that might have to be shipped via air freight (by far the most expensive transportation mode), the computer maker will instead substitute an upgraded component it has in stock. The consumer gets a better computer, though the wait for the system will be longer than originally expected. In effect, Dell will take a loss on the cost of the components if it can save on transportation costs and in the process keep a customer happy. And it's been Dell's ability to "cost-effectively supply exactly what its customers want" that has made its supply chain best-in-class.
IBM Corp., another computer industry leader, spends roughly 50 cents of every dollar of revenue on its supply chain, which based on 2005 sales of $91 billion, represents a supply chain spend of $45.5 billion. Big Blue refers to its on-demand supply chain, which Nick Donofrio, executive vice president of innovation and technology, explains is one that can sense and respond to customers' demands and to changes in the marketplace—no matter how frequent and sudden.
"In the past, manufacturing was a rather isolated activity," Donofrio says. "It was located at or near the end of the supply chain. The manufacturing team didn't get involved in anything until after the product had been designed and developed, the planning and forecasting had been done, and the customer had placed the order. That model is history. It will never suffice for today's customers who demand instantaneous response to their inquiries. What's required now is the complete integration of manufacturing into the overall supply chain, as well as the integration of the overall supply chain itself."
IBM's transformation to an on-demand model didn't happen overnight. A key factor in its integration was a razor-close examination of how an order moves throughout its system. "We looked at how we could integrate logistics and inventory, and what we needed to purchase from suppliers," Donofrio explains. "By embracing the e-business model, we were able to deploy capabilities that would increase efficiency of our supply chain, and strengthen our relationships with our suppliers and customers. We were able to link customer-facing systems, such as order entry, order scheduling, and confirmation, to the supply-facing systems that drive procurement, warehousing, manufacturing, distribution, and invoicing." In short, IBM now ties together all of the relevant "plan, source, make, deliver, and return" elements of its supply chain.
Silos - Break 'Em Down!
One of the major objectives of supply chain management is to break down the silos that operate within any company. The term silo refers to the silhouetted portrait of a typical manufacturer: smoke-belching chimneys towering over several-stories-tall factories situated near tall office buildings. Every school kid recognizes that picture, and it's become the default icon for every PowerPoint presentation that needs an instantly recognizable image of a production facility. Unfortunately, it's not just the silo image that lingers in the public consciousness—it's the entire silo mentality that supply chain proponents keep trying to break down, with varying degrees of success.
Let's face it: Taking control of the supply chain and aligning a company's processes so that improvements are regular and long-lasting are very difficult tasks to accomplish. For some companies, though, an even harder task is deciding whether to start the process at all, particularly given the long tradition of "throwing it over the wall" between various production departments. When it comes to aligning manufacturing within a supply chain context, it's not easy being lean.
Today, thanks largely to the historic success of Japanese automaker Toyota and the more recent but equally storied success of American computer maker Dell, textbooks outlining the principles of lean manufacturing sit on the bookshelves of countless executive suites. Yet for all the talk about lean, there's still a pervasive wait-and-see attitude at most of those companies, especially outside of the automotive and high-tech industries. While manufacturers and distributors of all types of products recognize that lean offers a more-or-less direct route to eliminating waste, reducing inventory, and becoming more profitable, wanting those benefits and actually having a plan in place for going after them are two very different things.
Improving efficiencies within a lean environment takes a concerted and coordinated effort to align all facets of the supply chain toward achieving the same goals. And the job is far from done once a company has all its internal oars moving in the same direction; that same process must be replicated throughout the main supply base. Any breakdown in communication with a key supplier will result in those lean inventories getting bloated again in very short order.
The patience that is required for a successful supply chain transformation can evaporate after one bad fiscal quarter, and any kind of company-transforming initiative by definition requires significant expenditures of time, money, labor, and other vital resources. Confronted with "put up or shut up" ultimatums from top management, many supply chain managers are stymied in their attempts to streamline manufacturing operations, even in the face of evidence that such efforts are working for other companies.
There's also the business-as-usual mindset that looks upon supply chain initiatives as mostly a one-time opportunity to reduce costs in a single area, with little or no thought given to a sustained effort throughout all corporate operations.
Nevertheless, companies continue to seek ways to break down the silo mentality for one basic reason: That's what the best manufacturing companies in the world have done. Best-in-class manufacturers have at least this one thing in common: Their cycle times are shorter than their order lead times. What's more, they've figured out how to reduce waste in numerous areas, which allows them to control their costs as they increase capacity and inventory turns. And in supply chain circles, nobody does that better than Dell.
The secret to Dell's success is really no secret at all—the company's direct model works because of a single-minded dedication to its customers, focusing on one customer at a time. Since its founding in 1984, the company has pioneered a make-to-order philosophy within an industry that was traditionally make-to-stock. Rather than sell its personal computers through retailers, Dell decided to customize every PC to the unique specifications of the individual end user. So customers get exactly what they want, while Dell builds PCs that have already been sold.
Let's face it: Taking control of the supply chain and aligning a company's processes so that improvements are regular and long-lasting are very difficult tasks to accomplish. For some companies, though, an even harder task is deciding whether to start the process at all, particularly given the long tradition of "throwing it over the wall" between various production departments. When it comes to aligning manufacturing within a supply chain context, it's not easy being lean.
Today, thanks largely to the historic success of Japanese automaker Toyota and the more recent but equally storied success of American computer maker Dell, textbooks outlining the principles of lean manufacturing sit on the bookshelves of countless executive suites. Yet for all the talk about lean, there's still a pervasive wait-and-see attitude at most of those companies, especially outside of the automotive and high-tech industries. While manufacturers and distributors of all types of products recognize that lean offers a more-or-less direct route to eliminating waste, reducing inventory, and becoming more profitable, wanting those benefits and actually having a plan in place for going after them are two very different things.
Improving efficiencies within a lean environment takes a concerted and coordinated effort to align all facets of the supply chain toward achieving the same goals. And the job is far from done once a company has all its internal oars moving in the same direction; that same process must be replicated throughout the main supply base. Any breakdown in communication with a key supplier will result in those lean inventories getting bloated again in very short order.
The patience that is required for a successful supply chain transformation can evaporate after one bad fiscal quarter, and any kind of company-transforming initiative by definition requires significant expenditures of time, money, labor, and other vital resources. Confronted with "put up or shut up" ultimatums from top management, many supply chain managers are stymied in their attempts to streamline manufacturing operations, even in the face of evidence that such efforts are working for other companies.
There's also the business-as-usual mindset that looks upon supply chain initiatives as mostly a one-time opportunity to reduce costs in a single area, with little or no thought given to a sustained effort throughout all corporate operations.
Nevertheless, companies continue to seek ways to break down the silo mentality for one basic reason: That's what the best manufacturing companies in the world have done. Best-in-class manufacturers have at least this one thing in common: Their cycle times are shorter than their order lead times. What's more, they've figured out how to reduce waste in numerous areas, which allows them to control their costs as they increase capacity and inventory turns. And in supply chain circles, nobody does that better than Dell.
The secret to Dell's success is really no secret at all—the company's direct model works because of a single-minded dedication to its customers, focusing on one customer at a time. Since its founding in 1984, the company has pioneered a make-to-order philosophy within an industry that was traditionally make-to-stock. Rather than sell its personal computers through retailers, Dell decided to customize every PC to the unique specifications of the individual end user. So customers get exactly what they want, while Dell builds PCs that have already been sold.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Supply Chain Metrics 5 - About the SCOR
By far the best-known and most detailed performance metrics are encompassed in the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model, which was created in 1995 and has been continuously refined ever since. The SCOR model provides an industry-standard approach to analyze, design, and implement changes to improve performance throughout five integrated supply chain processes—plan, source, make, deliver, and return—spanning the full gamut from a supplier's supplier to a customer's customer and every point in between. The SCOR model is aligned with a company's operational strategy, material, work flows, and information flows.
As explained by Peter Bolstorff and Robert Rosenbaum in Supply Chain Excellence, a handbook on using the SCOR model, the five SCOR processes encompass the following measurable activities:
Plan: Assess supply resources; aggregate and prioritize demand requirements; plan inventory for distribution, production, and material requirements; and plan rough-cut capacity for all products and all channels.
Source: Obtain, receive, inspect, hold, issue, and authorize payment for raw materials and purchased finished goods.
Make: Request and receive material; manufacture and test product; package, hold, and/or release product.
Deliver: Execute order management processes; generate quotations; configure product; create and maintain a customer database; maintain a product/price database; manage accounts receivable, credits, collections, and invoicing; execute warehouse processes, including pick, pack, and configure; create customer-specific packaging/labeling; consolidate orders; ship products; manage transportation processes and import/ export; and verify performance.
Return: Defective, warranty, and excess return processing, including authorization, scheduling, inspection, transfer, warranty administration, receiving and verifying defective products, disposition, and replacement.
The SCOR model provides a supply chain scorecard (or SCORcard, if you will) that companies can use to set and manage supply chain performance targets across their organization. Given the increased attention and scrutiny Wall Street is applying to the supply chain's impact on a company's financial performance, being able to measure exactly how well each process is doing is one of the key steps on the road to developing a best-in-class supply chain. Therefore, one of the main roles of the SCOR model is to provide a consistent set of metrics a company can use to measure its performance over time as well as compare itself against competitors.
In the end, supply chain metrics have three main objectives, according to Shoshanah Cohen and Joseph Roussel, authors of Strategic Supply Chain Management
1. They must translate financial objectives and targets into effective measures of operational performance.
2. They must translate operational performance into more accurate predictions of future earnings or sales.
3. They must drive behavior within the supply chain organization that supports the overall business strategy.
Supply Chain Metrics 4 - Supply Chain Check-up
How do you know that you need help in the first place, though? Benchmark studies and process maps are both expensive and time-consuming, and many companies whose earnings put them well outside of the Fortune 1000 realize that their supply chains aren't all they ought to be, but they are still hesitant as to what to do about it. Consultant Mike Donovan of R. Michael Donovan & Company offers a relatively short but challenging checklist that provides a basic assessment of how healthy your supply chain might be. If you answer "no" to any of the following questions, or even worse, if you don't even know the answers to some of these questions, then the time to get serious about fixing your supply chain problems is right now:
Do your order fulfillment rates meet management's specific and measured customer service strategy?
Are your delivery lead times competitive and predictable?
Do all of your supply chain departments agree on which products are made-to-stock and which are made-to-order?
Do sales and manufacturing share equally in determining the mix and investment in inventory?
Are the appropriate calculations being used, rather than "rules of thumb," to establish the desired mix and levels?
Are management's inventory investment plan and customer service objectives being compared against the actual results that are achieved?
Are short-term forecast deviations being monitored and adjusted, and is long-term forecast accuracy continuously improving?
Is your inventory accuracy consistently above 98 percent?
Are you able to avoid carrying excess safety stock buffers?
Are your excess and obsolete inventories being measured, and are they less than 1 percent of total inventory?
Time for a Turnaround
Automaker Nissan Motors is a good example of a company that recognized it was in trouble and used strategic benchmarking to launch a complete corporate turnaround. David Morgan, president and CEO of consulting firm D.W. Morgan Company, points out that Nissan was one of the relatively few companies that sat out the boom years of the 1990s, charting instead a decade-long course of failed products and poor financial results. In the year 2000, Nissan decided enough was enough as it began an initiative aimed at achieving an 8 percent profit on each vehicle sold.
"Through data collected in its supplier benchmarking program, Nissan discovered that suppliers were consistently producing inferior products at higher than average prices. In effect, Nissan was giving away $2,000 on every car sold. Further, Nissan's distribution costs were the highest among automakers," Morgan explains.
Once it became aware of these problems, Nissan quickly responded by improving its supply base. "Today, Nissan employs sophisticated benchmarks for every partner doing business with them. Any partner that fails to meet established standards is notified of corrective action that needs to be taken," he notes.
It took more than just benchmarking to effect these changes, of course. For one thing, Nissan expanded its closely held supply base to include global component suppliers. It also embraced many of the same lean manufacturing and quality philosophies that fellow Japanese automaker Toyota had pioneered. As a result of all these initiatives, Nissan has become a benchmark for the automotive industry. As Morgan points out, since 2000, the company's stock price has nearly doubled, and in 2005, vehicle sales were up more than 10 percent. Not too bad for a company that had been written off as comatose at the turn of the millennium.
Part 5 coming soon....
Do your order fulfillment rates meet management's specific and measured customer service strategy?
Are your delivery lead times competitive and predictable?
Do all of your supply chain departments agree on which products are made-to-stock and which are made-to-order?
Do sales and manufacturing share equally in determining the mix and investment in inventory?
Are the appropriate calculations being used, rather than "rules of thumb," to establish the desired mix and levels?
Are management's inventory investment plan and customer service objectives being compared against the actual results that are achieved?
Are short-term forecast deviations being monitored and adjusted, and is long-term forecast accuracy continuously improving?
Is your inventory accuracy consistently above 98 percent?
Are you able to avoid carrying excess safety stock buffers?
Are your excess and obsolete inventories being measured, and are they less than 1 percent of total inventory?
Time for a Turnaround
Automaker Nissan Motors is a good example of a company that recognized it was in trouble and used strategic benchmarking to launch a complete corporate turnaround. David Morgan, president and CEO of consulting firm D.W. Morgan Company, points out that Nissan was one of the relatively few companies that sat out the boom years of the 1990s, charting instead a decade-long course of failed products and poor financial results. In the year 2000, Nissan decided enough was enough as it began an initiative aimed at achieving an 8 percent profit on each vehicle sold.
"Through data collected in its supplier benchmarking program, Nissan discovered that suppliers were consistently producing inferior products at higher than average prices. In effect, Nissan was giving away $2,000 on every car sold. Further, Nissan's distribution costs were the highest among automakers," Morgan explains.
Once it became aware of these problems, Nissan quickly responded by improving its supply base. "Today, Nissan employs sophisticated benchmarks for every partner doing business with them. Any partner that fails to meet established standards is notified of corrective action that needs to be taken," he notes.
It took more than just benchmarking to effect these changes, of course. For one thing, Nissan expanded its closely held supply base to include global component suppliers. It also embraced many of the same lean manufacturing and quality philosophies that fellow Japanese automaker Toyota had pioneered. As a result of all these initiatives, Nissan has become a benchmark for the automotive industry. As Morgan points out, since 2000, the company's stock price has nearly doubled, and in 2005, vehicle sales were up more than 10 percent. Not too bad for a company that had been written off as comatose at the turn of the millennium.
Part 5 coming soon....
Supply Chain Metrics 3 - What Makes a Supply Chain Leader?
Here's the good news: Whereas the Singhal/Hendricks study exposes the vulnerability of poorly managed supply chains, another study conducted by Accenture (in partnership with INSEAD and Stanford University) reveals that companies identified as supply chain leaders have a market cap up to 26 percentage points higher than the industry average. That begs the question: So what makes a supply chain leader, anyway?
That's where the statistical approach comes in. If you can measure the performance of your supply chain, then you'll be able to determine how close you are to being best-in-class. But how do you know exactly who is the best at supply chain management? When Fortune magazine identifies the top-performing companies in a given industry, it uses the straightforward standard of annual sales. When it comes to identifying the top supply chains, though, merely counting up dollars and cents won't get the job done. After all, a supply chain that is truly best-in-class will encompass numerous operations and processes that don't necessarily show up on a profit-and-loss sheet, such as planning and forecasting, procurement, transportation and logistics, warehousing and distribution, customer service, and other key factors in the overall supply chain equation.
Measure Satisfaction
Automaker Hyundai uses its parts distribution operation to build customer loyalty. The company's goal is to provide high levels of customer service while keeping its costs as low as possible. In this case, the customers are Hyundai dealers, and through dealer satisfaction surveys the company has learned that order fill rate is the number-one driver of satisfaction. "If needed parts are available, our dealers are happy," explains George Kurth, director of supply chain and logistics with Hyundai Motor America.
So to ensure that it's keeping its dealers happy while keeping its costs down, Hyundai measures the facing fill rate, which is the order fill rate from the warehouse assigned to the dealer. "If we can keep that fill rate very, very high, it's good for dealer satisfaction and it reduces transportation costs," Kurth notes. "Shipping from the assigned warehouse on our dedicated delivery route is cheap. We pay for the truck no matter how full it is. If the part is not available from the assigned warehouse, we have to ship from another warehouse via an expedited carrier. We can satisfy the dealer and get the part there on time, but the cost soars."
Hyundai's facing fill rate on orders is about 96 percent, which is considered good for the automotive industry. The automaker also measures the fill rate for its entire warehouse network, which is 98 percent, also a high score for automakers. Kurth isn't satisfied with that score, though, because "that still means that 2 percent of the time, I have to use premium transportation."
Transportation costs, however, are just part of the total supply chain cost, which also includes inventory and productivity costs. Hyundai monitors the amount of inventory it carries at any given time, with the understanding that best-in-class for the automotive industry is never going to equate well with the high-tech industry's goals. "We tend to carry a lot of parts inventory because our automobiles last several years," Kurth says. "In contrast, Dell has virtually no parts inventory because a six-month-old computer is obsolete."
To stay on top of current automotive industry trends, Hyundai belongs to an independent automotive and heavy equipment group that collects performance and cost metrics from member companies and provides benchmarking services.
Part 4 next....
That's where the statistical approach comes in. If you can measure the performance of your supply chain, then you'll be able to determine how close you are to being best-in-class. But how do you know exactly who is the best at supply chain management? When Fortune magazine identifies the top-performing companies in a given industry, it uses the straightforward standard of annual sales. When it comes to identifying the top supply chains, though, merely counting up dollars and cents won't get the job done. After all, a supply chain that is truly best-in-class will encompass numerous operations and processes that don't necessarily show up on a profit-and-loss sheet, such as planning and forecasting, procurement, transportation and logistics, warehousing and distribution, customer service, and other key factors in the overall supply chain equation.
Measure Satisfaction
Automaker Hyundai uses its parts distribution operation to build customer loyalty. The company's goal is to provide high levels of customer service while keeping its costs as low as possible. In this case, the customers are Hyundai dealers, and through dealer satisfaction surveys the company has learned that order fill rate is the number-one driver of satisfaction. "If needed parts are available, our dealers are happy," explains George Kurth, director of supply chain and logistics with Hyundai Motor America.
So to ensure that it's keeping its dealers happy while keeping its costs down, Hyundai measures the facing fill rate, which is the order fill rate from the warehouse assigned to the dealer. "If we can keep that fill rate very, very high, it's good for dealer satisfaction and it reduces transportation costs," Kurth notes. "Shipping from the assigned warehouse on our dedicated delivery route is cheap. We pay for the truck no matter how full it is. If the part is not available from the assigned warehouse, we have to ship from another warehouse via an expedited carrier. We can satisfy the dealer and get the part there on time, but the cost soars."
Hyundai's facing fill rate on orders is about 96 percent, which is considered good for the automotive industry. The automaker also measures the fill rate for its entire warehouse network, which is 98 percent, also a high score for automakers. Kurth isn't satisfied with that score, though, because "that still means that 2 percent of the time, I have to use premium transportation."
Transportation costs, however, are just part of the total supply chain cost, which also includes inventory and productivity costs. Hyundai monitors the amount of inventory it carries at any given time, with the understanding that best-in-class for the automotive industry is never going to equate well with the high-tech industry's goals. "We tend to carry a lot of parts inventory because our automobiles last several years," Kurth says. "In contrast, Dell has virtually no parts inventory because a six-month-old computer is obsolete."
To stay on top of current automotive industry trends, Hyundai belongs to an independent automotive and heavy equipment group that collects performance and cost metrics from member companies and provides benchmarking services.
Part 4 next....
Supply Chain Metrics 2 - How to Prevent a Supply Chain Heart Attack
Here's an example of how sabermetrics-style supply chain analysis can frame Nike's problems as part of a trend that goes far beyond the apparel industry. Two researchers—Vinod Singhal of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Kevin Hendricks of the University of Western Ontario—looked at more than 800 announcements of supply chain problems from public companies over an eight-year period (1992—1999). These problems included things like inventory write-offs, parts shortages, shipping delays, and the like. The researchers then tracked the price of these companies' stock one year before and two years after the announcement.
So what happened? After all the numbers were crunched, a clear trend emerged: Companies that experienced supply chain glitches over that time period saw their average operating income drop 107 percent, return on sales fall 114 percent, and return on assets decrease by 93 percent. And that's not all: These companies also typically saw 7 percent lower sales growth, 11 percent higher costs, and a 14 percent increase in inventories. Exacerbating that already dismal situation is the fact that it takes a long time to recover from these disruptions.
"The supply chain disruption lowers the level of operating performance for a company, and then firms continue to perform at that lower level for the next couple of years," Singhal explains. He says a supply chain disruption can be compared to a heart attack because it cuts off the flow of information and supplies to a company, and it can have long-term—and sometimes fatal—effects on a company's health.
It doesn't really matter which industry the company is in, either, because any company reporting a supply chain glitch will see its shareholder value plummet. Process manufacturers (e.g., chemicals, food and beverage, textiles) tend to suffer the biggest hit to shareholder return, with a 51 percent drop. Retailers experience an average decrease of 42 percent, while high-tech manufacturers will see a 27 percent decline. Smaller companies are usually hit harder than large ones, although the drop in income is enormous for any size company—150 percent for small companies, 86 percent for large.
"When people talk about supply chain management, they may agree that it's important, but they're not investing in solutions," Singhal points out. However, even when companies do spend on solutions, they're not necessarily spending wisely. "One reason supply chain problems occur is because there isn't enough slack in the system," Singhal notes. "As companies try to make their supply chains more efficient, they take away slack because it's expensive."
The answer, though, isn't to throw a lot of money at your supply chain problems. It's to get smarter at identifying and tracking key indicators that might indicate potential glitches early on. That means developing better forecasts and plans, collaborating with suppliers and customers, ensuring real-time visibility, building flexibility into your supply chain, and other best practices.
Part 3 coming soon....
So what happened? After all the numbers were crunched, a clear trend emerged: Companies that experienced supply chain glitches over that time period saw their average operating income drop 107 percent, return on sales fall 114 percent, and return on assets decrease by 93 percent. And that's not all: These companies also typically saw 7 percent lower sales growth, 11 percent higher costs, and a 14 percent increase in inventories. Exacerbating that already dismal situation is the fact that it takes a long time to recover from these disruptions.
"The supply chain disruption lowers the level of operating performance for a company, and then firms continue to perform at that lower level for the next couple of years," Singhal explains. He says a supply chain disruption can be compared to a heart attack because it cuts off the flow of information and supplies to a company, and it can have long-term—and sometimes fatal—effects on a company's health.
It doesn't really matter which industry the company is in, either, because any company reporting a supply chain glitch will see its shareholder value plummet. Process manufacturers (e.g., chemicals, food and beverage, textiles) tend to suffer the biggest hit to shareholder return, with a 51 percent drop. Retailers experience an average decrease of 42 percent, while high-tech manufacturers will see a 27 percent decline. Smaller companies are usually hit harder than large ones, although the drop in income is enormous for any size company—150 percent for small companies, 86 percent for large.
"When people talk about supply chain management, they may agree that it's important, but they're not investing in solutions," Singhal points out. However, even when companies do spend on solutions, they're not necessarily spending wisely. "One reason supply chain problems occur is because there isn't enough slack in the system," Singhal notes. "As companies try to make their supply chains more efficient, they take away slack because it's expensive."
The answer, though, isn't to throw a lot of money at your supply chain problems. It's to get smarter at identifying and tracking key indicators that might indicate potential glitches early on. That means developing better forecasts and plans, collaborating with suppliers and customers, ensuring real-time visibility, building flexibility into your supply chain, and other best practices.
Part 3 coming soon....
Supply Chain Metrics 1 - Measuring Up to High Standards
It's probably just a coincidence, but the rise in popularity of supply chain management happens to coincide with the emergence of sabermetrics. No, you're not going to find that term defined in any business management journal; sabermetrics is the application of statistical analysis and research to the game of baseball. When personal computers became affordable in the early 1980s, supply chain analysts and sabermetricians alike fell in love with databases and spreadsheets that could crunch months' worth of product forecasts and decades' worth of box scores in minutes, rather than days. These days, "keeping a scorecard" is as much a part of the supply chain language as it is sports talk.
To paraphrase John Thorn, co-editor of Total Baseball, statistics are not just a cold-blooded means of dissecting profit and loss reports in order to examine a company's performance; rather, statistics are a vital part of the supply chain. The supply chain may be appreciated without statistics, but it cannot be understood without them.
To continue the sports analogy, back in the spring of 2001, the only event in which athletic footwear and "Just Do It" icon Nike seemed to be excelling was poor planning. Philip Knight, Nike's CEO, had to explain why the company's shoe sales were 24 percent less than expected, which led to an earnings shortfall of approximately $100 million. Much like a beleaguered baseball manager explains away a loss by pointing to a key player's failure to lay down a bunt in the late innings, so too did Knight point his finger at a convenient scapegoat: He blamed it on his supply chain plan.
Specifically, Knight singled out the problems Nike had implementing a new supply chain planning system. Those implementation problems, he explained, were what led to unforeseen product shortages and excesses. The installation of the software had been rushed (Knight didn't dwell on his role in making that decision, much as a baseball manager tends to gloss over whether a player was rushed to the big leagues before he was ready), and that led to conflicts between Nike's legacy order management system and the new demand and supply planning software. As a result, the company made too many of one style of shoe and too little of another, building up inventories of shoes few people wanted while experiencing shortages of more popular brands.
Simply put, Nike was having major league problems matching the right orders to the right customers. And Wall Street responded promptly, as Nike's share price dropped 19 percent when the glitch was announced.
More on this soon....
To paraphrase John Thorn, co-editor of Total Baseball, statistics are not just a cold-blooded means of dissecting profit and loss reports in order to examine a company's performance; rather, statistics are a vital part of the supply chain. The supply chain may be appreciated without statistics, but it cannot be understood without them.
To continue the sports analogy, back in the spring of 2001, the only event in which athletic footwear and "Just Do It" icon Nike seemed to be excelling was poor planning. Philip Knight, Nike's CEO, had to explain why the company's shoe sales were 24 percent less than expected, which led to an earnings shortfall of approximately $100 million. Much like a beleaguered baseball manager explains away a loss by pointing to a key player's failure to lay down a bunt in the late innings, so too did Knight point his finger at a convenient scapegoat: He blamed it on his supply chain plan.
Specifically, Knight singled out the problems Nike had implementing a new supply chain planning system. Those implementation problems, he explained, were what led to unforeseen product shortages and excesses. The installation of the software had been rushed (Knight didn't dwell on his role in making that decision, much as a baseball manager tends to gloss over whether a player was rushed to the big leagues before he was ready), and that led to conflicts between Nike's legacy order management system and the new demand and supply planning software. As a result, the company made too many of one style of shoe and too little of another, building up inventories of shoes few people wanted while experiencing shortages of more popular brands.
Simply put, Nike was having major league problems matching the right orders to the right customers. And Wall Street responded promptly, as Nike's share price dropped 19 percent when the glitch was announced.
More on this soon....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)