Search
or Search by TOPIC
Signup Bookmark page Sitemap  
 
  Sign-Up Free Newsletter
 
  Top Stories
RFID News: RFID Can Transform a Business, Says Dean Frew of Xterprise, but Change Management Challenges Slow RFID Progress
Transportation News: As Politicians Turn Up the Heat on Planned DHL Hub Closing, Deutsche Post CEO Says There Were Simply No Other Options
First Thoughts
  By Dan Gilmore - Editor-in-Chief  
     
   
  June 12 , 2008  
     
 

Supply Chain Complexity Crisis

 
 

 

Gilmore Says:
Among the many persuasive arguments that Mariotti makes is that a factor in all of this is that our accounting systems are simply not designed to “cost out” complexity. There are obviously no general ledger entries that capture it directly.

Click Here to See Reader Feedback

“Complexity is like a cancer that destroys supply chain efficiency.”

That quote, or something quite close to it, was from a supply chain executive at Pepsi several years ago, whose exact name I can’t find, but it has stuck with me ever since. (If anyone has the exact source, please email me at the Feedback button below).

I also had the pleasure a few weeks back of hearing John Mariotti memorably speak on complexity at the combined meeting of the CSCMP Atlanta Roundtable and Georgia Tech Supply Chain Executive Forum. John, Pat Sinnott (VP of Supply Chain for Canadian Tire) and I followed that with a spirited discussion at dinner that night on similar themes.

Mariotti, in fact, just wrote a book he titled The Complexity Crisis, and he is a lot more than just an author. He was previously president of Rubbermaid’s Office Products Group and, before that, Huffy bicycles, and now spends his time doing a lot of consulting with CEOs. (As a quick aside, Mariotti said that when Huffy’s board wanted to shut down the world’s largest bicycle plant in Dayton, OH, he offered a plan that would have used postponement and other strategies to keep much of the final assembly in the US, but the idea fell on deaf ears).

While Mariotti’s focus isn’t on the supply chain directly, it’s obvious that’s where, in fact, most of the complexity is in the end expressed.

“Companies are starting to realize that this Complexity Crisis is crippling them, destroying their profits, and draining their resources,’’ Mariotti says.

He sites an example from his own career. Mariotti, at the time, was president of Huffy’s mass retail division, which sold bikes to large store chains. At some point, the company decided that to grow, it needed to penetrate the small dealer channel, which required changes across everything from product design to marketing to pricing management and collections. It added killer complexity to what had been a relatively simple business.

“This complexity came in layers,” Mariotti writes in the book. “A different, more fragmented distribution system; a much less price-sensitive, elitist consumer base; different products focused on high spec, light weight, performance and “snob appeal,” etc. What seemed like subtle market and product differences at the outset “added unseen complexity – layers of structure, process, cultural, and relationship differences that would be hard to even imagine until you encountered them.”

Sound familiar?

Mariotti says this complexity is simply destroying the profitability at many companies, and that executives often can’t see what the true cause is. They blame poor execution of what, in truth, are strategies doomed by the complexity it adds, especially in the supply chain. More suppliers, more parts, more forecasting, more customers to ship to, more returns to manage, etc.

Yes, companies need new products and new markets to grow, but there are limits – the complexity created in chasing those markets, especially if there is not a rigorous parallel effort to minimize the level of complexity created, can simply rise to a level beyond which the company can profitably handle.

“It’s usually the best of intentions that lead to a complexity crisis,” Mariotti said.

Among the many persuasive arguments that Mariotti makes is that a factor in all of this is that our accounting systems are simply not designed to “cost out” complexity. There are, obviously, no general ledger entries that capture it directly.

Instead, “the costs of complexity are hidden in all sorts of accounts – variances, allowances, overhead, scrap, rework, inventory obsolescence, expedited transportation, etc.,” Mariotti said.

And as these new products, markets and channels are developed, those of us in the supply chain “are like the ones who have to clean up after the parade,” Mariotti said to the audience in Atlanta, which elicited a strong chorus of knowing laughs and nodding heads, as did his comment that no company seems to have “un-marketing departments.”

He also makes this great point – complexity is most often the result of trying to goose high growth from what are fundamentally low-growth markets. In other words, niche the products even further in these areas to try to capture a bit of share; penetrate these new, but small channels, etc.

Mariotti also ask the crowd if anyone really knew what it costs their companies to process an order.

“If you do, you will be about the first,” he said.

The point was that those costs alone make it very difficult to be truly profitable for small volume customers – whose numbers are often a key dimension of complexity.

Of course, companies are generally loath to cut off any customers, even small ones. Mariotti said when he was at Huffy, he came very close to ending shipping to the now defunct Caldor’s chain, because it was so late in its invoice payment to Huffy. The cost of, in effect, floating that inventory – actually, the entire supply chain - to Caldor’s destroyed the profit it made from the sale. Only when Mariotti went to the Caldor CEO and said he was prepared to stop shipping to what was, at the time, a very large customer did the payment situation get resolved.

Globalization, information flow, brutal competition, are all adding to the natural tendency to add complexity.

So, here is the problem, and one that is acute at many companies, from my conversations with supply chain executives. What I think Mariotti has done brilliantly is articulate the impact not just on the supply chain parade cleaners, but on corporate profits.

What to do? Mariotti has some suggestions, but we’re out of room, and I’d love to hear your ideas too. More soon.

Do you agree that many companies have a “complexity crisis?” Do accounting systems lack the ability to capture the impact on profits? What are steps companies and supply chains can take – or should supply chain simply try to clean up the parade? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.

.

 
 
     
  Send an Email  
 
Feedback

June 18, 2008

There is no question that complexity adds to supply chain issues, however, there is another important factor - confusion. In the mid - 1980s, Professors Robert Hayes and Kim Clark at Harvard conducted a major study on the sources of factory productivity.

They found that complexity had an impact and found that a factory's task became more complex as it grew, added products and processes and experienced a wider variety of production orders. However, they found that confusion, categorized as managerial actions that disrupted the stability of the operation, had a negative impact on productivity.

Managerial actions that created confusion included varying production rates, changing schedules once they had been established, expediting orders, changing work assignments, processes and ECOs, all of which contributed to confusion in the plant that led to lower performance.

So, an important question to consider when looking for performance improvement opportunities is what is complexity and what is confusion and is it possible to manage both, but with different approaches.

For example, the author of the article uses the example of small volume customers and order costs. Too often, we use the accounting system with totals and averages to try to get our arms around these questions, but the data is not suited for that type of analysis, so we use totals and averages which gives an incorrect picture of results.

In one organization, I worked with, we used exactly these methods for our supply chain planning until we did an order size distribution analysis and learned that our most popular order size was 1 unit, and orders of 3 units or less accounted for half of the orders, but from a unit standpoint, the majority of the volume was in truckloads. Even though we did not have exact costs to process an order, we had enough knowledge to know that small orders had high fixed costs and low unit costs and that the volume component was the driving cost component for the large orders.

The result: instead of a one size fits all process based on the mythical average order, we designed one process for the small orders and another for the large. This resulted in lower costs and much less confusion. At the same time, we were able to better associate our pricing with order costs and as a result, improved our margins.

David Armstrong
Sr. Manager - WW Inventory, Worldwide Materials
Flextronics



June 18, 2008

Good article. I do not think that accounting systems lack the ability to capture the impact on profits. Now that efficiency has come to the forefront about driving out costs when a process is miscategorized is causing the problem.

Organizations failure to do a root cause analysis on the actual problem and only address the symptoms. Today's software is so complex it can track anything and everything. This then becomes an exercise in data aggregation, and assigning the correct cost structures to the correct business process. As stated, “What is the cost to fulfill an order?”

Software now will have to look at the business process as whole and relate each event (which is now tracked) to figure out a cost. Only when costs are calculated then appropriate decisions can be made pertaining to profitability of that process or product. BI, Performance management become key and understanding the data completely is where organizations will have to focus.

Dylan Persaud
Sr. ERP/SCM Analyst



June 15, 2008

An excellent piece as usual Dan. Kind of makes you wonder what happened to all of the Value Stream / Value Chain thinking. Wouldn it not seem to follow that leaning out of all those non-value activities and eliminating waste out of the supply chain would lead to less confusion and complexity?

I think that the outsourcing movement may be a big part of the problem, at least it facilitated it to some degree. When most of the operations necessary to build a product were conducted in house there was an understanding that you could only do so much. As soon as we decided to outsource all but the core competency, we found that there is almost unlimited capability. Why not utilize it to ”imagineer” products which can capture market share, even if only for a short period?

If supplier X can't build it then have that one built by supplier Y. Need new materials and processes? No Problem. Don't get me wrong, I think outsourcing has its place. I just do not think most companies think it through well, particularly when they are planning new products. Henry Ford may have been wrong when he thought his company should own all of the processes, but at least he kept things fairly simple: one model in one color -- black.

Steve Murray
Principal and Chief Researcher
Supply Chain Visions



June 13, 2008

I think you will find the answer you are looking for below:

"If you are in Supply Chain Management today, then complexity is a cancer you have to fight. Process management is the weapon. Understand that Supply Chain Management is too important to be simply a function. It is everybody's job."

Tom Blackstock Vice President Supply Chain Operations Coca-Cola North America

Best,

Mark Baxa
Global Logistics and Trade Compliance Lead
Monstanto



June 12, 2008

Complexity indeed. We are in an environment which requires a single system to process multi-stage T/L, LTL, and parcel shipments, for orders which contain mixtures of 3PL, DC, and Store shipments, which include products which are priced at bulk, style and SKU levels, in euros, yen, and dollars.

What is a supply chain professional to do?? I agree with the article: the frustration factor is greatly underestimated in most companies. Thinking over some of our recent irritants, three pointers come to mind:

1. Adopting standards is a big help in reducing complexity. How many times have we seen modifications to process the same information differently for different parties?

2. We do not need the whole potato. Take a bite at a time - we do not have to install a complete system all at once. Implementing systems a small step at a time is not always possible, but whenever it can be done, do it.

3. 80+20=100. Some developers (including myself) love to design multi-layered systems which will accommodate far more situations than are reasonably expected, or necessary. Frequently (not always) we can reduce this complexity by adhering to the 80-20 Rule (get the system to handle 80% of the workload and let the humans tackle the remaining 20%).

It is a start.

Russ Moore
Sr EDI Analyst



June 12, 2008

Who said what:

Not sure the source of the quote (“Complexity is like a cancer that destroys supply chain efficiency.”). It does, however, bring to mind another quote that is in the same spirit. Again, not sure of the source, but here ya go: "Better is the mortal enemy of good."

Ken Finkel
VP Sales & Business Development
ScheduleSoft Corporation



June 12, 2008

The main paradigm of many companies is there everlasting wish to grow in size and market. Many think that they cannot sustain there business without considerable growth in volumes and market penetration. This paradigm not only upsizes your business, it also upsizes your complexity of business as pointed out in the article.

Economic and scale growth may seem the answer to face the competition, however, it is a short term strategy. Consider the development and results of companies that constant persue growth over a period of 5 years or more. There development will show a wave in time. A wave of periods of strong growth, and period of decline. This constant change, related to the global economy wave, never results in a decline of complexity.

Companies may loose grip on there market, they do maintain there complexity, which is further extended at the next wave of growth. Reducing complexity of logistic can only be achieved thru reducing the size and complexity of the company. More companies should consider to break themselves up. Which is now often forced by Capitalist companies, which look for quick wins, thru buy, break up and sell the loose parts of the organisation. This strategy is only more logic when you evaluate the performance of companies related to there size. They grow in turnover, there performance and margin mostly remain at the same level or even decrease.

CEOs are to proud to admit that size does not matter. Bigger is not better. Companies should remain small and agile. Do not buy your competition out, set up an strategic alliance which leaves enough space for independent business for both.

CEOs shoud also accept that companies may go bankrupt. It is like live itselve.When a company does not add real value anymore to the market, it should step aside and make room for the new,bright and smaller newcomer which is still in touch with the market. Smaller, quick operating companies have less problems to sustain a flexible supply chain. Learn from it. Do not grow, resize, get smaller and flexible again.

H.Groen Management
Consultant & interim Management SCM
The Netherlands



 
Related Videos Related News & Videos
Coming soon
Logistics News: Can Use of a "Casual Observer" Strategy Help Improve Distribution Operations?
Supply Chain News: Transcript of Supply Chain Digest Interview with Nick LaHowchic, Part 2
Limited Brands' Nick LaHowchic Unplugged, Part 2
Supply Chain News: Six Steps to Improved Cost Justification for Supply Chain and Logistics Initiatives
Supply Chain Graphic of the Week - Logistics Operating Models
Supply Chain News: Improved Internal and External Collaboration Key to Improved Forecasting Results
   
Keywords
Managing effectively   Supply chain costs   Supply chain excellence   Supply chain finance   Supply chain strategy   Supply chain thought leadership   Managing effectively   Supply chain costs   Supply chain excellence   Supply chain finance   Supply chain strategy   Supply chain thought leadership





Supply Chain Digest Home | Contact Us | Advertise With Us | Sitemap
© 2006-2007 Supply Chain Digest - All Rights Reserved