Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become your character. And watch your character, for it becomes your destiny. What we think, we become. “My father always said that”. Margaret Thatcher
The year 2012 is behind us. If you are like me, you may not have accomplished all the goals that you had in mind at the beginning of the year. No worries, the year 2013 is before us.
Here are Seven Rights of Fulfillment taken from the CSCMP website, which I believe are relevant for our industry, but also can be adopted as a framework for your goals for this year:
1. The right product
2. To the right customer
3. At the right time
4. At the right place
5. In the right condition
6. In the right quantity
7. At the right cost
The ability to meet customer requirements is built upon the expectation that everything is done correctly in the supply chain. In the quest to provide quality service and satisfy customers, world-class companies along the supply chain are guided by these Seven Rights of Fulfillment.
Goal setting involves establishing specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-targeted goals. Take a moment right now and think of one goal that you want to accomplish in 2013. Done? You just primed your subconscious.
June 3rd, 2012 3:15 pm Category: Optimization, by: Alan Kosansky
Supply chain managers are tasked with making the critical decisions to improve supply chain operations by taking costs out of the system while improving customer service and profitability. The best managers rely not only on their experience but also on data-based decision-making. Making the best decision to minimize supply chain costs and maximize profit requires accuracy in your data.
However, don’t confuse accuracy with precision. Too many decision makers throw out the baby with the bath water when they shun data based decisions because the data does not precisely reflect the detail of their operations. Wise supply chain managers and analysts understand that for many decisions, aggregated and/or averaged data can accurately reflect the cost/benefit tradeoff of critical decision and point in the direction of near-optimal decisions. For example, modeling manufacturing capability and capacity at the product family level is often accurate enough to make the right supply and demand balancing decisions. Another example: even when optimizing detailed scheduling operations within a single plant it is important to find the right level of detail to model so as to balance accurately capturing the realities of the manufacturing operations and being able to evaluate a large number of production sequencing options in order to find the optimal schedule.
Finding the right level of data detail to inform accurate decision tradeoffs while searching for the optimal decisions is an art as much as a science. It requires experience and expertise in both supply chain operations and optimization modeling.
This is my passion, so let me know what experiences you’ve had, and how you have found that balance to achieve optimal performance in your supply chain operations.
IDK (“I Don’t Know”)
After listening to a Freakonomics Radio podcast on NPR, the following question and blog comments emerged:
Why do people feel compelled to answer questions that they do not know the answer to?
What I’ve found in business is that we are all prone to hiding our ignorance when asked a question that we cannot answer. So even if someone absolutely has no idea what the answer is, if it’s within his or her realm of expertise, “faking” seems to be an essential part of the response.
My professor friend told me that she has learned the following from teaching MBA students: “One of the most important things you learn as an MBA student is how to pretend you know the answer to any question even though you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. It’s really one of the most destructive factors in business. Everyone masquerades like they know the answer and no one will ever admit they don’t know the answer, which makes it almost impossible to discover the correct answer”.
I ask: Does every question need to be answered?
Everyone expects answers to every question, especially if the question comes from someone higher up in an organization. However, not every unknown question is worth the time and resources to research. If it comes down to the choice of making-up an answer or being saddled with a research project, many people will prefer to make-up an answer. Perhaps in some situations, combined with the ego/self-image issues, every question will be answered, regardless of the person’s knowledge.
I ask: Should IDK be a legitimate response?
Perhaps, if the question has minimal economic impact on the business, and you know something related to the question, then maybe a guesstimate (an estimate made without using adequate or complete information) is fine.
But then, for significant economic impact questions …maybe it’s better to say “IDK the answer to that question, but we are studying it”, and then do the study!
As an example, management asks: Will our delivered cost per SKU increase or decrease if we add more distribution centers to meet expected growth rates and satisfy customer service levels?
The first reaction guesstimate might be “yes they will increase”, although, this might not be true.
The smart analyst will say: “Hmmm, IDK! Give me a few hours (days) to do a quick analysis, and see what the true impact will be.”
A small spreadsheet study looking at the increase in production and distribution levels combined with the increase fixed and variable costs associated with adding a few new distribution centers may be surprising. It may indicate that the increase volume and revenues and lower transportation costs will offset the increased DC costs.
This small study may also be the first in a stage gate approach to perform a forward looking comprehensive supply chain infrastructure study. A detailed strategic infrastructure study can capture the manufacturing and distribution details, including costs and constraints, generating results that will allow management to make a reliable strategic economic decision.
No field is exempt from their know-it-alls, even when the correct answer really is IDK.
I submit, if you are in an uncertain position, try the IDK approach and then offer the following response “I can check into that and find an answer for you”. You may be surprised to learn that your credibility with management will improve.
“Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one’s self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily.”
November 21st, 2011 12:20 pm Category: Global Supply Chain, Jim Piermarini, Network Design, Optimization, Risk Management, Scheduling, Supply Chain Agility, Supply Chain Improvement, Supply Chain Planning, Sustainability, by: Jim Piermarini
Change is hard.
In the businesses that I help, change comes for several reasons. It may be thrust upon the business from the outside, a change in the competitive landscape for instance, or a new regulation. It may come from some innovative source within the company, looking for cost savings to increase profitability of productivity, or a new process or product with increased productivity. Change can come from the top down, or from the bottom up. Change can come in a directed way, as part of a larger program, or organically as part of a larger cultural shift. Change can come that makes your work easier, or harder, and may even eliminate a portion (or all) of the job that you were doing. Change can come to increase the bottom line or the top line. But primarily change comes to continue the adaptation of the company to the business environment. Change is the response to the Darwinian selector for businesses. Adapt or decline. Change is necessary. It is clear to me from my experience that businesses need to change to stay relevant.
This may seem trite or trivial, but accepting that change is not only inevitable, but that it is good, is the shift in attitude that separates the best companies (and best employees) from the others.
So, you say, I see the need to change, it is not the change itself that is so difficult, but rather the way that it is inflicted upon us that makes it hard. So, why does it have to be so hard? Good question.
Effective managers know that change is necessary but hard. They are wary of making changes, and rightly so. Most change projects fail. People generally just don’t like it. Netflix is a great example. Recently, Netflix separated their streaming movie service from their DVD rental business. After what I am sure must have been careful planning, they announced the change, and formed Quikster, the DVD rental site, and the response from the customer base was awful. As you likely know, Netflix, faced with the terrible reception from their customer base and stockholders, reversed their decision to separate streaming from DVDs. What was likely planned as a very important change, failed dead. Dead, dead, dead. Change can be risky too.
If change is necessary, but hard and risky… how can you tame this unruly beast?
The secret of change is that it relies on three things: People, Process, and Technology. I name them in the order in which they are important.
People are the most important agents relative to change, since they are the one who decide on the success or failure of the change. People decided that the Netflix change was dead. People decide all the time about whether to adopt change. And people can be capricious and fickle. People are sensitive to the delivery of the change. They peer into the future to try to understand the affect it will have on them, and if they do not like what they see… It is the real people in the organization who have to live with the change, who have to make it work, and learn the new, and unlearn the old. It is likely the very same people who have proudly constructed the current situation that will have to let go of their ‘old’ way of doing things to adopt to the new. Barriers to change exist in many directions in the minds of people. I know this to be true… in making change happen, if you are not sensitive to the people who you are asking to change, and address their fears and concerns, the change will never be accepted. If you do not give them a clear sense of the future state and where they will be in it, and why it is a better place, they will resist the change and have a very high likely hood of stopping the change, either openly, or more likely passively and quietly, and you may never know why the fabulously planned for change project failed.
Process is the next aspect of a change project that matters. A better business process is what drives costs down. Avoiding duplication of efforts, and removing extra steps. Looking at alternatives in a ‘what-if’ manner, in order to make better decisions, these are what make businesses smarter, faster, better. A better business process is like getting a better recipe for the kitchen. Yet, no matter how good a recipe; it still relies on the chef to execute it and the ovens to perform properly. Every business is looking for better business processes, just as every Chef is looking for new recipes. But putting an expert soufflé recipe, where the soufflé riser higher, in the hands of an inexperienced Chef does not always yield a better soufflé. People really do matter more than the process.
Technology is the last aspect of the three that effect change. Better technology enables better processes. A better oven does not make a Chef better. The Chef gets better when they learn to use the new oven in better ways, when they change the way they make the soufflé, since the oven can do it. A better oven does not do it by itself. An oven is just an oven. In the same way, better technology is still just technology. It by itself changes nothing. New processes can be built that use it, and people can be encouraged to use it in the new process. Technology changes are the least difficult to implement, and it is likely due to this fact that they are often fixed upon as the simple answer to what are complex business problems requiring a comprehensive approach to changing the business via it people, process, and technology.
Change is necessary, but hard and risky. Without change businesses will miss opportunities to adapt to the unforgiving business world, and decline. However, change can be tamed if the attitude towards it is changed to be considered a good thing, and is addressed with a focus on people, process and technology, in that order. Done right, you can implement the change that will increase the bottom line and avoid a collapse of your soufflé.
We recently attended a discovery meeting that was focused on how to conduct a strategic optimization planning study of an existing distribution network. The company wanted to know what changes needed to be made to lower the distribution costs. Several members of the management team were present and there were many questions regarding the ideal business process, study approach and modeling tools to be used to insure a successful project.
What was interesting to me was the overwhelming focus on the modeling tool. Questions about who would be on the project, the timeline, the types of scenarios, data gathering and validation were secondary. It may be important to have the right tool to model your infrastructure, but the real focus should be on the experience and modeling capabilities of the users of the tool.
These are the Critical Success Factors
- Full participation in data gathering and results review by the project team and management.
- Clear definition of the key questions to be addressed and the related scenarios required by the Project Sponsor early in the project timeline.
- Availability of leadership resources within the company throughout the project to review assumptions and to ensure integrity and quality of the input.
- On time delivery of a complete set of all required data by Project Team members.
- Acceptance and agreement on the variable, fixed and capital cost assumptions of existing and potential new facilities.
- Availability, communication, and collaboration of the Project Team members, support staff, and consultant for all working sessions, conference calls, and follow-up between meetings.
It’s important that the optimization modeling tool can incorporate the variables and constraints associated with your supply chain, but the real focus should not be on the tool, but rather on the experience of the users of the tool and their ability to deliver the results of a project. If I were to set out on a network optimization planning project to model my entire supply chain, then my primary focus would be on developing an experienced team of individuals that had the skills to minimize the above risks.
Just this week, IBM’s “Watson” computer showed off its impressive language processing capability by handily beating the best humans at the game Jeopardy!. This was of interest because Jeopardy is filled with tricky language such as puns, slang and wordplay; and Watson was able to process it all, figure out the context, and take it to the humans in winning handily. You can read about Ken Jenning’s firsthand account at http://www.slate.com/id/2284721/.
This story reminds me of the 1997 chess competition between Deep Blue and Gary Kasparov. I was fortunate to hear Kasparov speak at a supply chain conference just days after he had lost to Deep Blue. Despite the fact that he was deeply upset about having lost, Kasparov was able to share important insights that were relevant to the supply chain industry and business in general. What he pointed out was that the competition missed the real point. He described how machines were better at certain kinds of tasks (memorization of massive data, fast processing through the data, etc..), and humans were better at other tasks (certain kinds of inferences and relationships), and that in the future he would hope to see man-machine teams compete against one another to see who could create the best combination of person and machine to be the best at Chess.
Clearly this was an insightful comment to a room filled with supply chain experts. It is our job, every day, to make the best possible decisions in the face of an overwhelming amount of data in front of us. We know for sure, that we cannot rely completely on technology to make these decisions. We know equally well that experience and business savvy are not enough in today’s world to consistently make the best decisions for our business. So our challenge is the one of which we are once again reminded: how best to combine human ingenuity, experience and insight with the power of modern technology to make our business and supply chain be the best they can be. At Profit Point, this is our passion.