Guest Commentary

In this latest guest post, Douglas Macbeth of the University of Southampton School of Management argues that western economies can no longer afford to pursue a strategy of relentless offshoring - the costs and the risks are far too high...

Let us start with a few propositions which, in my experience, describe the majority of our manufacturing organisations – as well as many others.

• Procurement isn’t well understood at board level;

• There are not enough CPOs who are able to influence board direction and strategy;

• Short-term financial myopia drives decisions;

• Manufacturing is no longer seen as core to western economies – services are more important.

For many years, western companies have been moving away from manufacturing and have chased the world to find the latest low-cost country from which to source everything from materials to complete products.

But why has this happened?

To some extent there is a certain logic – labour and social costs are initially much lower in developing countries. But does anyone really know how to calculate the total cost of acquisition (far less the total life-cycle cost) of anything? And if not, what data is the decision maker using? While the concepts might be easy to grasp, extracting meaningful data out of ERP or traditional accounting systems is enormously difficult. Add multiple divisions and legacy information systems, and the quest for the Holy Grail looks simple in comparison.

Add to this the fact that the proportion of total cost which is accounted for by labour tends to be very low, and it is slightly puzzling why the trend for low-cost sourcing is so prevalent.

The reality is that the difficulties of offshoring are now well recognised. There is often a shortage of appropriate skills in the target location; infrastructures for physical logistics and legal structures to conduct western-style business transactions may be in short supply; time zones, culture, behaviour and attitudes are likely to require careful consideration and it will often be necessary to pay the costs of ex-patriot managers to help in the start up phases at least.

The alternative to the latter is to train up locals – a form of technology transfer which can create competition much quicker than you would like. And while some companies try and limit this by only transferring some of their capabilities, the same supplier might be building up skills across multiple orders. Who, apart from the supplier managers (and in some cases their governments), would have any view over the whole supply chain to see this pattern?

When we add to this the experiences we have just been through with the global financial system meltdown and we have the makings of a real catastrophe which will challenge the perceived wisdom of offshoring.

One major lesson for me from the banking crisis is that not enough people saw how interconnected the world’s financial systems were. Equally, no one had the appetite to perform a proper due diligence and risk assessment on the nature of the assets that were supposedly underpinning the whole house of cards.

However, before we criticise the bankers too much, how many of us can define our extended networks of suppliers and customers and have done a detailed assessment of where the critical risks are located and what mitigations are needed?

Wwe seem to be in the midst of a perfect storm. Some organisations are replacing bank lending to suppliers with their own financial support just to keep transactions moving, there are issues around currency fluctuations which are difficult to hedge against and the recent threat to business credit insurance threatens to further restrict the fluidity of supply chains. Without trust – or at least, insurance – how can any trade function, especially across international borders?

In addition, while there is talk about avoiding the threat of protectionism in international trade, the levels of taxpayer investment, and therefore future taxation, is at mind-blowing levels. It is no surprise that politicians are trying to control the effects of their investments to derive local benefits.

In the midst of all this, the environmental message seems to be getting heard more clearly. One of the features of this, however, will be measurement and concerns about carbon footprints and the true costs of transportation.

The opportunity for procurement to take centre stage here is clear – no other function has the potential to contribute so much. Risk assessment has always been part of the procurement process, but now we have to extend its horizons beyond the suppliers we are directly contracting with and into our extended networks more explicitly. We also need to be involved in the redesign of products to meet the challenges of extended life, reuse and repurposing that the green agenda will drive.

The fundamental need is to restructure supply chains to support these networks, which might still be international in part rather than simply chasing headline price reductions. It might also be necessary to repatriate some activities closer to customers to reduce the risks and costs of international transportation – companies might have a mixed model with different supply solutions for different channels of customer service, for example.

So, this article started by focusing on manufacturing rather than services. Surely we must by now recognise that the reliance of an economy on invisibles is inherently flawed – we must rebuild a balanced portfolio of activities. Of course we still need an effective and reliable financial services sector but we also depend on goods producers, transportation providers, energy and water providers to live our normal lives.

While some of the information and entertainment industries may be less concerned with some of these aspects since their dependence on physical location is less critical, for the rest, physical location must be a mix of close to source and close to consumer. And let us do that in a more considered way, informed by a vision of a more interdependent future.

And while I’m not suggesting that we should head for a state interventionist system (although that seems to be what is happening) rather, we need to redefine and then persuade our societies’ stakeholders that we need a more enlightened model which recognises and can work with interconnectedness and diversity in a dynamic and entrepreneurial way.

Are procurement leaders up to the challenge?

Professor Douglas Macbeth is director of business development, MSc global supply chain management and supply chain research, as well as professor of purchasing and supply chain management, at the University of Southampton School of Management.

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."

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.

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.

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....

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....