supply chain


Today I read a post by Justin Fogarty in Supply Excellence that mentions a report from HEC Paris.

I read the entire report, and among the things that caught my eye is the list of tools and their usage at the interviewed companies that have been implemented to work in a sustainable way in procurement. Below the list and the percentage of utilization:

1.- Supplier Charter: 67%
2.- Suppliers Assessment tools: 40%
3.- Categories/Risks Analysis tools: 38%
4.- Suppliers CSR Audits: 30%
5.- Guidelines on best practices per commodity: 27%
6.- Total Cost Models: 16%

Interestingly, having a formal Supplier Charter on Sustainability is the one tool that 2/3 of the companies have already implemented. That is only the INTENT to do something. When they move to actually doing something (the rest of the list), the tool most used is the Supplier Assessment one, but only 40% of companies are using it. Furthermore, if you keep reading the report, companies are more into stating changes in their processes rather than actual results i.e. reduction of carbon footprint. Again, more words than action.

Is still along road to Sustainable Sourcing and Procurement, but at least the intent to do something is better than nothing.

Carlos Ortiz

Today we continue with Part Two of Extreme Sourcing: Aiming for Perfection in Spend Management and how sustainable business practices are not only more economical, but also mandatory if we want to have a planet in which we can all live in.

We reviewed two of the four pillars of natural capitalism, namely Increasing Resource Productivity and Elimination of Waste. Here come the other two:

3.- Service and Flow.
Every business needs product and services to keep it going. But the ways in which those items are sourced, purchased and used can dramatically affect the impact in the environment, simply by misplacing incentives. The classic example is how companies are now sourcing for photocopiers. In the not-so-distant past, vendors like Xerox, Canon, Ricoh and others made their money by selling photocopying equipment and a juicy maintenance conract attached to it. The equipment was the product being transacted and the purchaser was married with the manufacturer for the life span of the equipment.

Now, every major client I have worked with has, or will soon move to a services agreement in which it pays by printed document. The client is paying for the photocopying service, not the equipment itself. In this case, the manufacturer has every incentive to keep the equipment working at it’s peak efficiency and for the longest time in order to recoup the investment and then make profits. If the manufacturer can extend one year more of productive life out of the standard five years from it’s equipment, each machine can now increase revenues by 20% with little extra investment. It requires that the manufacturer designs the machine in ways that minimizes overhauls, uses high quality and durable components, lowers cost of operation and be fully recyclable so old components can be re-used or fully recycled into new equivalent ones.

Now, I may ask, why can’t we do this for every non-core process in the enterprise? Companies can buy conditioned air services instead of air conditioners from Carrier Corp. or flooring services from Interface, Inc., leasing carpet instead of buying it. Almost every service can be purchased in this way, using a pull approach and paying for what is actually used instead of the equipment to perform the work.

4.- Reinvestment in Natural Capital
So, what do we do with all the money we save after implementing all the above strategies? The standard way would be to return the money to investors or “invest” in the traditional sense. New plants, equipment, employees and R&D. That is capitalism, and it is indeed good. But the focus of those investments is the one that should change.

Instead of just building another manufacturing facility, invest in a sustainable one: one that uses solar lighting, no air conditioning, lean processes, no toxic effluent.

Equipment that minimizes or eliminates waste.

In some instances, because of all the savings attained in manufacturing, companies can actually start looking at hiring more people to take care of some of the tasks that traditionally have been poorly performed by machinery, such as disassembling old equipment, customizing products for demanding clients who bought a “close enough” solution, product or service instead of the ideal one, etc.

And finally, research and development. As an example, I use one that has been widely used in the literature around natural capitalism: spider silk. If a spider can make a totally organic, non-polluting, extremely resistant fiber as it spider web silk is, why can’t we do the same? Why do we need multi-billion dollar investments in chemical plants, generate pollution, waste and massive energy use, when a spider can do it at room temperature using other fully natural inputs? Granted, the spider evolved over millions of years to accomplish that. But did not do it in a vacuum. It evolved out of necessity.

We can evolve out of necessity and be able to create the spider silk ourselves.

So, where does all this talk about natural capitalism leaves for the Spend Management profession? Two key takeaways:

1.- We are part of the core team of professionals who can help shape the future of businesses. We need to educate ourselves in sustainable practices so we can sell internally in our companies the way of the next industrial revolution.

2.- There are sustainable ways in which each service and product entering the enterprise can be sourced, purchased and used. It takes ingenuity and hard work to figure it out, but it must be done. Or else.

Benchmarking. The magic word for companies trying to be among the best and be more competitive. Unfortunately, “among the best”, “leader”, “best in class” are no longer valid alternatives. The enterprise should focus in perfection in its own terms by eliminating waste and therefore becoming ultra-efficient, or perish. The clear leaders in any field do not benchmark: they ARE the benchmark! The leaders are not aiming to be like someone else, they define “best” by aiming high, aiming for perfection.

But how do we define perfection in the enterprise? Isn’t it too high of a target? Since perfection is an absolute term, in reality, it’s relatively easy to define. The Merrian-Webster dictionary defines perfection as:

1: the quality or state of being perfect: as a: freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness b: maturity c: the quality or state of being saintly
2: a: an exemplification of supreme excellence b: an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence

All are valid for the enterprise, but one stands out for me: an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence. This is a simple statement, but if it is incorporated in the DNA of every company, it will make of it a formidable competitor in any field. It will make it free from fault or defect.

But, nothing is truly perfect because nobody has seen perfection, the key is then in being unsurpassable.

As you may have realized by now, accuracy and excellence, fault and defect are terms with widespread use in business books and practices. But they are seldom used to define a simple goal. What I propose is perfection as the goal instead of just being better. I’m not saying is easy, but by saying that the company is looking for total elimination of waste, it will have to align all the resources for that goal.

So how do we attain perfection in Spend Management? I don’t know. Every industry has it’s own metrics to define it. What I do know is that it requires a new philosophy. And that philosophy, as I already mentioned, is the elimination of waste. In this case, waste is any activity or material that is not directly related with the creation of value for the enterprise. I hope some examples based on the ideas presented in the book Natural Capitalism by Hawken, Lovins & Lovins will clarify.

1.- Increasing resource productivity
Would you buy or build a product or service that is utterly complicated and it requires an inordinate investment of time from your buyers? I know the answer is no, but we still do it, regardless of the lessons learned from Toyota and the principles of lean manufacturing, which reflect very well the aim for perfection. These principles, in essence, say that the right size of a process depends on the rate and location of customer pull. If we have inventory of raw materials, semi manufactured products or simply a warehouse full of finished products, they are all a reflection of a wasteful process. The process doesn’t scale to the demand. We are pushing materials instead of allowing the demand to pull production.

The spend manager can work hand in hand with manufacturing in identifying bottlenecks and help in some areas in which it can have an impact, such as raw material inventory. In this case, an accurate forecast can help the sourcing team negotiate a flexible delivery schedule with the vendor, so the materials supply matches the manufacturing requirements exactly. Not 90% or 99%. Anything beyond the exact need is waste. Zero inventory is the simplest way to manage inventory.

2.- Lean Thinking in action: Elimination of Waste
A purchase order that for whatever reason needs review, reprocessing, correction or a phone call to the supplier generates waste. It creates delays, defects, errors, and scrap. It wastes horrendous amounts of time. Why do companies tolerate waste in the purchasing department and not in the manufacturing floor? A lean purchasing organization has automated processes and also the tools to accomplish more work with the same resources. Normally, we tend to integrate very well with our “strategic”vendors. We install direct links with their ERP systems, we nurture the relationships with them. All of that is good an necessary if businesses want to succeed.

But what about the landscaping contractor? Do you really need it? What if instead of having a green turf in a semi-arid environment such as California, you replace the English style garden (mirrored from a place with significant rainfall) with a native California landscape using local species? The garden will take care of itself for the most part, will not require daily irrigation, and will only require few hours a week to maintain so it doesn’t look unkempt. The company will not only save water and other resources. It will become a more sustainable business overall, and will, as a result save money. Finding the right landscaping design company and devising the maintenance statement of work is the job of the spend management team, as well as keeping an eye of the cost reduction targets and contract revisions if necessary. Maybe the company can completely scrap a landscaping maintenance contract. As Forrest Gump would say “one less thing”.

Tomorrow, we will review two additional principles that are part of my analysis: Service and Flow, and Reinvestment in Natural Capital.

In the last few weeks, I’ve been working together with other Silicon Valley professionals, and under the leadership of John Swan from Global Green Village, a new special interest group that focuses on a 10,000 ft view of the sustaibale development movement and how it relates to businesses and the new job positions that will be required to run the new enterprises that must emerge if we want to have a sustainable future. The group is an amalgam of a wide array of professionals from every imaginable trade. And this extraordinary combination of talent is the only way that such an initiative can succeed, for there’s not a single, linear strategy that can make our businesses sustainable. Every part of an organization must contribute to the overarching goal of making products and delivering services in a way that not only reduces the impact on the environment, an strategy dubbed “eco-efficiency” that boasts the well known “reduce, reuse and recycle motto. The 21st century enterprise must focus it’s energy into creating products and processes that not only reduce materials utilization, but actually nurtures the environment. Instead of having a zero emission goal, we must focus on positive impact.

Millions of tons of materials are forever wasted in garbage dumps because once used, the vast majority of final products cannot be effectively disassembled and reprocessed into a brand new product of the same kind. When we recycle paper, the paper mill has to add fillers, chemicals and other products to compensate for the reduction in length (the source of strength) of the paper fibers that result from the milling and reprocessing, and after a few cycles, the degraded, more toxic material ends up in the dump anyway. In this case, a substitute might be the solution as the case may be with Melcher Media, which now uses a polymer that doesn’t degrade instead of paper, and once and if the book is not needed anymore, it can be fully reprocessed into the original polymer without further addition of toxic chemicals or fillers. The polymer in the book is not really recycled. It is the raw material for exactly the same product, therefore eliminating the environmental impact. The manufacturer does not need to source new virgin resins over and over again. The cycle is eco-effective instead of merely eco-efficient.

The Spend Management professional is at the core of this revolution in material substitution. Together with R&D, engineering, process redesign and management oversight, sourcing of these new raw materials is as important as the will to be more sustainable. Without support of a market savvy professional, the engineers and manufacturing folks may not have the time, connections or expertise to make a full research of the supply base. If the sourcing team has a good standing with their suppliers, the solution for some of the problems that arise during the creation of a revolutionary product may already be in the sights of a vendor with a similar vision, but with no clients willing to commit to a joint development.

This is a first glimpse of what I’m planning to write about in the next two weeks, and my focus will be on how to instill the eco-effective approach to new enterprises, who can be the leaders of the market place in the future. A company that will have the impact of Google, which started merely a decade ago, may already be out there. It’s founder can create a world leader in eco-efficiency now, even if it is still under the radar. Imagine the impact of such a company when it sells billions of dollars of eco-efficient products 10 years from now.

My next delivery will try to present several approaches to what can be done at the small enterprise supply chain to improve their road to eco-effectiveness and natural capitalism.

If you like Venice (or want to go there) and you work in Supply Chain, you’d really like the blog post here

Short quote:

Keep it simple. Tribal knowledge tells you what your bottlenecks are. Focus on proactive measures that will ensure that you are ready when the capacity crunch comes.

Following to my article on Fiat’s next steps in the US, I read an article in The Wall Street Journal written by Matthew Slaughter in which he elaborates more on the subject of competitive supply chains, insourcing and comparative advantage in the US auto industry.

An abstract from Yale Global about the article is posted below:

Expecting American industry to be great at everything undercuts the notion of “comparative advantage”: that countries should manufacture and export those products for which they have an advantage relative to other countries, while importing the remainder of their needs. The US auto industry provides an apt example of comparative advantage and what it means to be an American product. Chrysler’s troubles were caused in part by its lack of global focus. Meanwhile, the foreign transplants have built a robust business in the US through insourcing – importing components while conducting research and development and manufacturing in the same market as the one into which one sells. Moreover, auto parts are typically produced globally and then assembled locally, so an “American” car is a misnomer. In the end, encouraging insourcing, and thereby furthering comparative advantage, is likely to improve economic conditions more than expecting or attempting to make American industry the best at everything – a project doomed to failure in any case. – YaleGlobal

The article is worth reading in it’s entirety.

By now, we are only starting to see the implications of Fiat’s takeover of Chrysler. Today’s article in DealBook actually makes an analysis of the synergies and other stock price related issues for Fiat Auto (part of the Fiat SpA conglomerate) and it’s subsidiaries.

But what exactly is the impact of the merger for the auto industry supply chain once and if the merger is approved? Brand perception aside, Fiat is poised to have a very strong position in the small and medium size car segment, the one that now lures the more environmentally (if forcibly) conscious American consumer. We are not talking about some of the Fiat Auto brands such as Ferrari or Maserati. We all know those. We are talking about the Cinquecento or Fiat 500 and the likes. This is a VERY small car, and the consequences for the US automotive tier one vendors could be enormous.

First let’s start with some logic:

1.- We are still 18-24 months away from Fiat to be able to manufacture any vehicle in the US
2.- Fiat needs to start selling cars
3.- Therefore, the cars need to come from somewhere until they retool Chrysler’s facilities.

So, where will the cars come from? Obviously everybody thinks they will come from Italy, right? Well, not so fast. The answer may come from a sunnier, happier place: Brazil.

The auto market in Brazil is still growing, they are by now the sixth largest automobile market in the world with close to 2.4 million units produced in 2007 and a preliminary number from ANFAVEA [link in Portuguese], the auto lobby group in Brazil, that said sales increased to 2.8 million light vehicles in 2008, putting Brazil above Italy, France and the UK. I think I have made my point that Brazil is a serious contender in the auto industry.

How does Brazil fits into Fiat’s strategy? Well, Fiat contributed 743,000 vehicles, close to a quarter of the total produced (including exports) and it is also the market leader in internal sales. They accomplish this feat with only one [not a typo] manufacturing facility in the country.

Logistics and engineering from Brazil

So, Fiat has a gigantic manufacturing capability in Brazil, and because is much closer to the US, looks like a good launching platform for some new models into the US. Not a very good prospect for US based tier one vendors. One potential problem for Fiat would be what to do with some or all the Chrysler plants. They can not simply close them and import all cars, as it is politically (and presumably financially) impossible. But remember, Fiat needs to sell cars with their own brand relatively soon, so they will have to bring cars from somewhere. The cars coming from their plants in Europe are market ready for the EU, but not the US, so they will have to redesign their cars to comply with US regulations and safety standards.

At the same time, the Brazilian engineers are extremely competent in adapting foreign designs to their own market. Almost every car manufactured in Brazil has an original EU counterpart. But the EU versions are full of bells and whistles that are not marketable in Brazil because of the high cost. Therefore cars need to be substantially re-engineered to strip all the expensive features, leaving the car recognizable only in the exterior. It is this quick time-to-market that makes Brazil a very compelling launching platform for some of the models to be sold in the US. The automotive supply chain in Brazil is almost entirely focused on small cars and they make their profit out of very small margins, whereas the US counterparts are used to bigger, heavier components. The size issue is, in my opinion, the biggest hurdle US tier ones and twos face. They will have to compress their margins, on cheaper components (not lower quality, just smaller and lighter), so their total cash flow will be lower even if they sell the same number of units to Fiat.

The Challenge
So, how to make money with smaller, cheaper cars? Look at Fiat’s subsidiary in Brazil and all the other US brands subsidiaries around the world. They all sell small cars and make money and indeed are saving their US owners from having more dismal financial results. When the Big Three created their subsidiaries around the globe, they used to send their executives and engineers to train the locals. Now, the flow will reverse and the Brazilians are likely to go to Detroit to teach a lesson or two to the remaining workforce. How ironic.

My former colleague Kris Colby from Ariba has written an interesting post about the potential disruption of supply chains now that the Swine Flu (or more accurately “Influenza A [H1N1]“)  is a worldwide issue.

He concludes by saying:

The bottom line is, it’s not time to panic, but it is time to prepare.

But what does “been prepared” mean? I guess the answer is different for everybody.

So, get those SARS contigency plans you had back in the day (because you did plan for that, right?) and update them!

[Full post here]