This Week on SCDigest:
Who will Own the Supply Chain Assets in the End?
New Material Handling Tech Notes
Supply Chain Graphic of the Week and Supply Chain by the Numbers
Cartoon Caption Contest Winners
SCDigest On-Target e-Magazine
Expert Insight: Your Global Supply Chain Tower Has  A Memory
Expert Insight: Choosing The Right Platform For Multi-Channel Commerce
This Week on "Distribution Digest"
Trivia  Feedback

Become a Sponsor
SCDigest Home Page  
  Newsletter Archives February 25 , 2010 - Supply Chain Digest Newsletter

Featured Sponsor:  BSi Supply Chain Security Solutions


Preparing for C-TPAT, AEO, and PIP: Is Your Supply Chain Security Program Ready?

Learn More


Our WMS: Should it Stay or Should it Go?

A Framework for Deciding Whether to Replace, Keep or Enhance your Warehouse Management System

Register Now!
Live Broadcast Scheduled

for Tuesday, March 16, 2010

New! Materials Handling Tech Notes

The Materials Handling OEM as System Integrator: What you Need to Consider

Second Tech Note: The Materials Handling OEM as System Integrator: What You Need To Consider


This Week's Supply Chain News Bites
Only from SCDigest

Supply Chain Graphic of the Week: What Supply Chain Issues Corporate Executives Worry About in Global Trade


This Week's Supply Chain by the Numbers for Feb. 25, 2010: Only half of Companies Expect Supply Chain Savings; $350 Million in Fast Ships Mothballed; Home Depot Tools Up Store Workers To Find Inventory; Foreign Investment in China on Rise Again


Dual Winners, as Gerry Anderson of Freight Intelligence Corp. and Lillian Polz of Hanna, Zappa & Polz Takes Home the Prize for Feb. 15th Contest


See the Winning Entries and the
Best of the Rest

Each Week:

Global Supply Chain
Trends and Issues

Expert Insight:

Your Global Supply Chain Tower Has A Memory

by Greg Johnsen


Your Global Supply Chain Tower Has A Memory

How Valuable Is A Control Tower To Day-To-Day Operations?

Expert Insight:

Choosing The Right Platform For

Multi-Channel Commerce

by Vinayak Hegde

Choosing the Right Platform for

Multi-Channel Commerce


HolsteHolste's Blog: The Question Is Not "IF" Your System Will Be Hacked Into, But "WHEN"

Top Story: Materials Handling Equipment OEM as Systems Integrator - What your Need to Know
Top Story: Alternative Forklift Power Sources

Visit Distribution Digest


Reader Question: Does a detailed count of every carton received from suppliers to our manufacturing plant make sense? Can we implement an auditing plan?

See our expert responses

Add your insight!



What were the "three V's of supply chain" first articulated in the mid-1990s by then Gartner analyst Art Mesher, now CEO of Descartes Systems Group?

Click to find the answer below
Who Will Own the Supply Chain Assets in the End?

As promised a couple of weeks ago, I am writing a handful of columns over the next couple of months on various riffs on questions around supply chain outsourcing.

I started a couple of week’s ago with one way to look at the topic: Supply Chain Core versus Context, which readers seemed to find of interest – a couple emailed us that it was “very deep,” or something like that.

My theme this week is this: Can, or should, most companies really just shed most of their supply chain assets?

I have actually been thinking about this for some time, starting maybe two years ago at an industry even I was attending. There, during a roundtable type session that if memory serves me correctly was on something like “Supply Chain Strategies for the Downturn,” one supply chain manager rather vehemently (not sure what the exact context was at the time) argued (paraphrasing) that “You have to reduce your fixed costs. Outsource everything you can. Get rid of the assets.”

That, of course, is a widespread sentiment, at the executive level if not always in the supply chain. There is almost no question to me that one of the lessons that CEOs will take from this severe downturn is that the less of a fixed cost structure they have, and hence moving to a more variable model, the better they can withstand the economic ups and downs. In general, supply chain execs often see less fixed infrastructure and cost as a way to boost supply chain flexibility.

Gilmore Says:

"As manufacturers, shippers, and even 3PLs look to similar strategies, who are going to be the stupid SOBs that get stuck with the assets in the end?"

What do you say?

Send us
your Feedback here

“Accordion Logistics” is a term sometimes used – your network simply expands up and down depending on current volumes and needs. I have been at two recent events where 3PLs were promoting that concept using that exact term to audiences of shippers.


The funny thing is, even the outsourcers themselves sometimes think this way: in general, the value (based on acquisition activity) of “non-asset based” 3PLs is usually higher per revenue dollar than asset-based providers. A board member at one public company 3PL recently told me that this company “had navigated the downturn much better than most because they are non-asset based.”


So even many of the outsourcers don’t want the assets. I really don’t know yet if we have reached the stage of “non-asset based contract manufacturer,” but it seems likely we will someday if we haven’t already.


Back to the meeting: when the one attendee made the remark about shedding assets, almost simultaneously my friend Greg Aimi of AMR Research and I both had the same thought – somebody has to own the darn assets. So who will it be?


Which has left me with a question ever since: As manufacturers, shippers, and even 3PLs look to similar strategies, who are going to be the stupid SOBs that get stuck with the assets in the end?


And a few more questions: Is in not possible that at some point there may issues for the companies outsourcing supply chain assets in terms of capacity and cost? Can the accordion really being expanded indefinitely?


Maybe yes and maybe no.


Awhile back, I asked Chris Munro, an accomplished executive in the 3PL industry for many years and now a partner at private equity company Fenway Partners, which makes investments in logistics service providers, some of these questions.


Here is a basic one for me: If there is “risk” and cost in owning supply chain assets, don’t 3PLs, contract manufacturers and other outsourcers in turn bear those same risks and costs? And doesn’t that in the end have to reflect itself in prices back to the outsourcers?


For example, if one driver of the desire to shed supply chain assets is to improve a company’s return on assets (basically, annual profit divided by net asset levels on the books, a key metric looked at by Wall Street), does that by definition imply someone taking or offering those assets is willing to accept a lower return? Otherwise, how can it make a good financial choice for the company outsourcing? Doesn’t the outsourcer have to price in the cost and risk of holding the asset?


Yes, but in a way that can work for both sides, Munro says.


“For a variety of reasons – certainly through offshoring – an outsourcer can often bring a lower labor cost structure that it would just be too hard to for the company outsourcing the function to get too quickly,” Munro says.


However, he also said that the returns Fenway Partners expects from its assets are certainly no less – and perhaps often even more – than manufacturers or distributors.


“But what the outsourcer can often bring to the equation is the skill to really “sweat” those assets,” he said. In other words, the outsourcer often has as a core competency in relentlessly managing a return on the supply chain assets it builds or buys that is simply not the way most regular supply chain managers, focused on operating cost, customer service, and other pressures, rarely think about it in the same way.


That can mean that it is possible for the outsourcer and outsourcee (to invent, I think, a terrible new term) to both win. The outsourcer can offer the service of its assets at a way that still saves the outsourcee money because they simply have to get more out of the asset to make a profit, and focus great effort there.


Frankly, Munro added, there really is something to the notion of “what stupid SOB gets stuck with the assets” notion.


“There is something of a pecking order in the logistics industry, and yes, the less capable owners and managers often do often wind up with the worst, least profitable asset bases,” he said. Enough to make a living, perhaps, but not a great one.


Clearly, the potential to embrace an Accordion Logistics or Accordion Manufacturing (haven’t heard that term yet) strategy appears to make a lot of sense when there is tremendous overcapacity among service providers, as there is now. Will that always be these case?


Perhaps for a long while, and maybe indefinitely. Just take the asset-heavy trucking industry, for example. About every time things start to swing in the truckers’ favor, they immediately start individual company market share plays that collectively take rates right back down again, to the shippers’ delight.


There is also almost always an advantage to buyer over seller, so I suppose that is another factor in making this work, though it says the outsourcers’ returns may in fact be lower than that of their customers, unless they really are exceptional at “sweating” those assets, as Munro says.


It is a fascinating topic to me – on the logistics side, this noting of “flex manufacturing” has been around for a long while. “Accordion Logistics” is much newer – we’ll explore this in more detail soon. But I will just say here companies really need to be sure just how expandable that accordion is.


Finally, as I learned well at two manufacturers I worked for early in my career, the fixed versus variable question isn’t so clear cut. More variable costs are great when volumes decrease in a down turn, but when times are booming a more fixed cost structure can deliver some huge profits (think highly automated DC, for example).


This is a question simply at the “core” of supply chain strategy.


What’s your reaction to Gilmore’s comments? Do you expect the drive to shed supply chain assets will continue and even increase? How do you analyze this at your company/clients? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.


Send an Email

Web Page/Printable Version of Column


Do you use an RSS reader? Do you have a MyYahoo! or personalized Google page?

For these and more you can have SCDigest delivered right to your personal pages, all week long.

You can subscribe to our RSS feeds in two ways:

  1. Copy our RSS link into your RSS reader - it's easy!

  2. Click on a button below to quickly add it to your favorite readers.

We received a good number of letters on Dan Gilmore's First Thoughts column on The Real Value of (Less) Inventory, whick looked specifically on the impact of inventory on fee cash flow and then shareholder value.

We print a selection of them here, includeing our Feedback of the Week on this topic from Manoj Singh of IBM Global Services, plus several others.

We also have one left over from last week on The Supply Chain 2015, which offered a series of pretty specific predictions for what will happen in supply chain and logistics over the next 5-6 years.

Feedback of the Week - On Real Value of Inventory:

Nice article covering the basics. I saw one thing missing though from the cost of inventory – the carrying cost. This is a saving on top of the “cost of capital”. The carrying cost is typically in the range of 10% to 15%. Some of the carrying cost is variable, like labor which is almost directly proportional to the unit of inventory reduced, whereas, certain carrying cost, like storage warehouse require a certain minimum level of inventory reduction before they can be taken off.

I also wanted to point out a small clarification on the concept of “free cash flow”. Free cash flow can be generated either by reducing inventory or turning it around fast (i.e. increasing inventory turns by selling fast) – it’s the latter that creates the “useful” free cash flow that adds value to the company and not the former. Let me explain little more. Typically companies pay for the inventory through short term loans. If there was no need for the inventory they would not have taken the loan, and hence, there would not be any free cash flow. The only case where free cash flow becomes important is when a company uses its own cash to invest in the inventory. In that case, reducing inventory and hence, freeing up the cash would help invest the capital somewhere else (with higher returns). So in other words, generally, when the inventory is reduced, it’s really the “cost of the capital” and not the capital itself that’s saved.

So then the key question becomes if it costs to carry inventory (carrying cost + cost of capital) then why not reduce it as much as possible. That begs the next question - how much inventory can and should a company reduce. There are two steps to this analysis – first companies need to look from market perspective, essentially their competitors and see what’s the inventory turn of the best in class (BIC). If the BIC is 10, as an example, then that determines how much inventory is the company entitled to keep, to meet a certain sales level. Second step in the process is look at internal processes – specifically cycle time of operations, inventory policies, stranded & excess inventory, obsolescence, etc, to determine how much can the inventory be reduced to meet the entitled level. There are a few other side variations to this problem as well. Sometimes, inventory cost  - the cost of capital or the capital tied itself is not the biggest of all concern for the company –  particularly those that are in high margin business. For them any stock-out can have a significant revenue and margin loss. In those cases, it’s OK to maintain high level of inventory to ensure near 99.99% fill rate. The inventory cost is offset significantly by the revenue and margin up

Manoj K. Singh
Associate Partner

IBM Global Services

More on Real Value of Inventory:


Thanks for another great article. “Amen” is all I have to say!

Just one other thought. “Inventory embodies the set of decisions made in the past from forecasts and operational plans, and casts them in concrete. The further in the past the decisions were made, the less useful they become. Inventory freezes decisions”. (Adapted from “Lean Distribution”, Kirk D. Zylstra).

Mario Carniato

Manager, E-Supply Chain

Kimberly-Clark Australia

Wanted to say your Real Value of Less Inventory is a really well done piece. Glad you did it. And you did another piece last week on the 50% problem. That too was very good. So good, in fact, that I wrote a column on that (giving appropriate credit, of course) for the next issue of OCH .

Gary Forger

Senior Vice President of Professional Development

Material Handling Industry of America

Obviously, any reduction in inventory can have a direct impact on "working capital."  In addition, inventory reduction has an indirect and quite possibly a direct impact on distribution center and/or store space requirements.  Depending how a corporation accounts for the fixed costs associated with distribution centers and/or stores, the net effect of inventory reduction can thus have a positive impact on current and future real estate costs.  

Larry Zwakenberg
Blue Spruce Consulting

Feedback On Supply Chain 2015:


For residential (ecommerce) shippers, I have watched the distributed warehousing capabilities of Amazon confound their competitors with very fast yet very low cost delivery of goods ordered.  They are now even offering same-day delivery in several markets for prices less than you might pay for a 5-day delivery from across the country.  Wow!  That has to start to shake things up.  Do you see much of a trend to this distributed warehousing capability in other parts of the ecommerce market, or is it only going to be Amazon?

Don McKee




What were the "three V's of supply chain" first articulated in the mid-1990s by then Gartner  analyst Art Mesher, now CEO of Descartes Systems Group?


Visibility, Velocity, and Variability.