This Week on SCDigest:
Supply Chain Collaboration 2010: Buy, Sell or Hold?
Supply Chain Graphic of the Week and Supply Chain by the Numbers
New Cartoon Caption Contest Begins April 12th
SCDigest On-Target e-Magazine
Expert Insight: Cloud and the Collaborative Supply Chain
Expert Insight: Churchill Leadership Series Part 5
This Week on "Distribution Digest"
Trivia  Feedback

Become a Sponsor
SCDigest Home Page  
  Newsletter Archives April 16 , 2010 - Supply Chain Digest Newsletter

Featured Sponsor:  LXE


Welcome To The Jungle:

A Case Study on Real-Time Asset Tracking in An Extremely Tough Environment

Videocast Series: Making Retail Smarter

Part I: Achieving Shelf Space Optimization

Featuring Michael S. Watson, Ph.D.

of ILOG Optimization

& Supply Chain Solutions, IBM

Register Now!


The Evolution of the 21st Century Supply Chain: Balancing Inventory, Workforce and Transportation

Part 1-- Maximizing The Return On Your Labor Investment

Featuring Jim Chamberlain of DCS Logistics, Ed Gill of Accenture and John Ogg of Gaylord Entertainment

Learn How DCS Logistics Reduced Labor Costs 20%

This Week's Supply Chain News Bites
  - Only from SCDigest

Supply Chain Graphic of the Week: Outbreak of Good Manufacturing News Across the Globe

This Week’s Supply Chain by the Numbers for April 16, 2010: DSC Logistics Drives Labor Productivity; JB Hunt Hunts Intermodal Profits; Rebuilding the Rare Earth Supply Chain; Walmart to Ramp Up India Sourcing

New Cartoon Caption Contest Begins April 12th!

Send In Your Entry Today!

Deadline April 21, 2010


Each Week:

Global Supply Chain
Trends and Issues

Expert Insight:

Cloud and the Collaborative Supply Chain

By Greg Johnsen
EVP Marketing & Co-Founder

GT Nexus

Cloud and the Collaborative Supply Chain

Expert Insight:

Behavior 5 - No Defeat In His Heart

by David K. Schneider


Churchill Leadership Series:

Behavior 5 - No Defeat In His Heart


HolsteHolste's Blog: Distribution Center Complexity Is A Growing Concern For Many Companies

Top Story: Wearable RF Devices Gaining interest as Hands-Free Option; OHL Finds 10% Gain even over Voice
Other News: Should You Keep, Replace and Enhance Your Current WMS?

Fralick: WMS Interfaces versus Integrations

Someone has to keep the Operational Conscience!

Visit Distribution Digest

New SCDigest White Paper

Re-Staple Your Self to a Multi-Channel Order

Next Generation Order Management is Critical to Supply Chain Success



What very consequential supply chain event happened in the Port of New Jersey in 1951?

Click to find the answer below
Supply Chain Collaboration 2010: Buy, Sell or Hold?

Is there really any more vexing topic than supply chain collaboration? Every couple of years, I write a column on this subject, and my own views continue to shift – though this year, I have some new clarity.


I will admit to being a bit of a cynic. There is simply too much blah, blah, blah in the discussion of collaboration, from my view.


Clearly, there are many benefits that can come from various forms collaboration (see below). But I am not sure that the lack of collaboration is quite the stumbling block to supply chain success that many pundits seem to suggest; perhaps stated better, there are really limits to how much collaboration we can expect, and maybe we should just live with that.


Despite the calls for more collaboration at conference presentations, industry associations, etc., the situation never seems to really change. I suspect we’ll be hearing the same calls for more collaboration 10 years from now as well. You can make a career out of it.


A few years ago, our contributor Gene Tyndall touched on a similar theme:


“The ‘continuous process of sharing, partnering, connecting, and aligning to improve supply chain performance, for win-win benefits’ – which is what collaboration really is – is stalled, at best. The challenges have mostly been cited: trust; cultural differences; organizational barriers; unsustained executive commitment and involvement; technology differences; etc.”

Gilmore Says:

"But talk is cheap – this time in a good way. I think we could solve a lot of our “collaboration” problems by simply communicating more deeply and consistently."

What do you say?

Send us
your Feedback here

Below you will find what I hope are a few interesting comments on supply chain collaboration: 

  • Clearly, the call for more collaboration depends on where you sit. The most vocal calls for more collaboration generally come from suppliers/service providers, who wish their customers/clients would share more information with them (naturally), and often in truth see collaboration as a way to drive more business with/through that customer/client.

Certainly, there are also many ways where collaboration can reduce supply chain costs, but in either case suppliers often myopically think their priorities should also be those of their customers. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


Customers/buyers, on the other hand, tend often not to really differentiate much between collaboration and compliance. When you carry the heavy stick that is the purchase order, the line between collaboration and compliance is a very fine one indeed. As just one example, who wouldn’t want to be considered one of a customer’s “strategic suppliers?” But the buyer calls the shots on that one.

  • I like Dr. John Gattorna’s observation a few years ago in his book Living Supply Chains that too many companies waste time trying to collaborate with trading partners who aren’t interested in collaborating. This leads not only to frustration but also diverting resources that could be applied to trading partners that really do want to collaborate. Per the point above, this usually, but not always, involves suppliers/service providers wasting time trying to collaborate with recalcitrant customers, rather than the reverse. 
  • In one of our supply chain videocasts last year, Procter & Gamble’s Jim Flannery made the insightful comment that real collaboration can only arise from real commitment. It can cost a lot of money and tie up a lot of resources to integrate systems and build joint supply chain programs. What company is likely to do this, Flannery asked, if there is not real commitment from the other side in terms of strategies, programs, purchase commitments, etc.,  that will give the partners confidence in the ROI from that investment? But how often are those firm commitments really there? 
  • Clearly, there are cross currents going on. Despite the calls for more collaboration, I see continued increases in “auction” type buying –and brutal pressure on pricing even in normal types of buying relationships. Witness the trucking market in the past two years. Can supply chain collaboration really thrive in this type of environment, independent of the overall state of the relationship? We should invest in collaboration, even though the relationship couldn’t withstand a 2% increase in costs?


A key and as yet largely unanswered question is how you even define collaboration. I have seen very few really attempts at this. Tyndall offers the CSCMP one above, but that is pretty broad. Let’s break it down.


A few years ago, I introduced a collaboration model, which I have revised for 2010. You can find an image of that model shown in miniature below, with a link to a larger version:


Larger  Image


The model suggest four levels:

Level I: Consistent Communications: It is amazing sometimes how little trading partners really talk in meaningful ways about what’s going on and potential opportunities for joint improvement. It has to start here.

Level II: Transaction Integration: Automation of basic business processes and transactions, using EDI, the Internet, or proprietary connections. As this takes investment, it is a form of collaboration.

Level III: Information Sharing: These same or other tools are used to provide trading partners with information that helps them make better decisions. There are many examples, from sharing of production, component, forecasts, inventory levels, POS data, and more.

Level IV: Business Process Integration: Involves true joint planning, process re-design across the trading partner interactions, and most importantly, sharing of risk and reward from the efforts.

So what’s the bottom line? What I now really believe is that calls for abstract collaboration are largely empty rhetoric.

What both sides of the trading partner equation need to do is to calibrate the nature of the relationship, using a model something like that which I have offered. Each relationship likely has its own sweet spot – though clearly buyers and sellers may differ as to what that is.

Nevertheless, that sweet spot is probably there for some period of time. If you are a large enough channel master, you can largely dictate those terms. But even at the largest companies, some level of commitment has to become the foundation of the higher levels of collaboration, where real investment must be made.

But talk is cheap – this time in a good way. I think we could solve a lot of our “collaboration” problems by simply communicating more deeply and consistently. And that doesn’t cost much at all.  Why don’t we do it more often?

How do you define supply chain collaboration? Should companies more formally segment their collaboration strategies by trading partner? Is the best approach simply more communication – and why doesn’t that happen? 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.

Catching up on a few letters this week. Below, we publish a few of the letters we received on our First Thoughts piece on The State of Demand Planning. That includes our Feedback of the Week from supply chain recruiter Jason Breault, who agree demand planners are often under-valued.

We also receive a few letters on our piece on Intel's transformation of its supply chain and manufacturing processes for its new lower cost Atom chip.

You will find all these below.

Feedback of the Week - On the State of Demand Planning:

As a management recruiter specializing in Supply Chain Planning, I couldn’t help but comment on your State of Demand Planning 2009 report.  First off – really nice job.

Although companies are trying to do more with less nowadays, 1 thing has been very clear throughout the recession – companies are not letting go of the good demand planners. As a matter of fact, the feedback I get from most hiring managers is that the recession has highlighted the importance of forecasting and demand planning within the organization.  

At the recent IBF conference in Orlando, one company cited that per $1B in sales, a 1% reduction in forecast error translated to a $400,000 savings in safety stock.  With those types of results and hard data, we’ve also seen organizations (and executives within those organizations) that were historically resistant to the S&OP process become ever more committed.

I really enjoy your weekly Supply Chain Digest.

Jason Breault

Managing Director

TopGrading Solutions

More On the State of Demand Planning:

I continue to read and enjoy your editorial columns.

In the early 80’s, while working as Director of Materials with Lightolier in NJ, I had occasion to learn, buy and install what was then a ‘state of the art’ forecasting packet from ASI out of Atlanta. The software packet had many features and functions and was technologically sophisticated, but, at the end of two years, its biggest advantage was it created a good database of our product history. It produced accurate forecast for stable products, but could not anticipate major changes or trends and was quite unable to forecast volatile products

For stable products replenishment is a good substitute for demand planning and for volatile products successful forecasting is having a good CRM where major customers share what their anticipated demands are.

Blair Williams CFPIM, CSCP, Jonah

Very insightful article and paper. I think it is one of your best. I am going to share it with some folks in the Department of Defense.

Jeff Holmes


On Intel Rethinks its Supply Chain:

Jim Kellso and his team did a great job of breaking down self-imposed barriers. 

There are many times that we think we need a firm schedule going out many weeks to account for materials, etc.  There is a lot of resistance to reducing the frozen period.  However, when you look at what is really happening to the factory, we change the schedule so much to meet short lead time requirements, we really don’t have a frozen schedule anyway.

Again, great job and thanks for sharing your experience with us.


Kent Harker
Harker Engineering

To me this is great news to see that Intel is breaking free from their own paradigms and going after “make-to-order” ... or as our Lean guys would call “pull”.

If done well – and from this article it sounds promising - this will make their end-to-end supply chain more responsive and get rid of most of that annoying and very expensive bullwhip-effect.

I wish the team all the best – please keep us posted on how it all comes together.


Danie Vermeulen

Chief Executive

Kaizen Institute NZ



What very consequential supply chain event happened in the Port of New Jersey in 1951?


The first of what we know of today as the ocean shipping container, invented by Malcom McLean of Sealand fame, were loaded on to ships. The rest is globalization history.