Skip navigation
2013

Not to worry, the live show was taped! We know not everyone was able to attend the Gartner Supply Chain Executive Conference, or our session in particular, so we made sure we could bring it to you, because as the full room at the event proved, this was a must-see presentation!

 

This unique session with notable supply chain leaders delivered on its promise to be equally entertaining as informative. Kinaxis senior business consultant (and pseudo talk show host!), Bill Dubois, moderated a lively panel discussion on Supply Chain Control Towers entitled: “Done with the Hype; Moving on to Defining an Approach and Driving Results.”

 

Panelists shared their views on what a Control Tower entails and why it’s worth it. Come hear from:

 

  • Don Gaspari, Director Global Materials Inventory, NCR
  • Laura Dionne, Director of Worldwide Operations Planning, TriQuint
  • Roddy Martin, Managing Director, Accenture
  • C.J. Wehlage, Vice-President High Tech Solutions, Kinaxis

If you have trouble with the video below, watch it on the supply chain expert community!

 

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/did-you-miss-the-late-late-supply-chain-show-at-the-gartner-conference/

At Kinaxis, I help our customers develop solutions to supply chain and project management challenges using RapidResponse. You may remember in my last blog entitled, “Another Link in the Chain: Connecting Project Management to the Supply Chain”, I discussed how changes in material, supply, demand, and resources can significantly impact project schedules. In this blog I want to continue that conversation.

 

Before integrated project management (IPM) came along, direct links between the supply chain and project management didn’t exist.  Such relationships led to project management features where supply and demand can directly link to and impact project tasks.In one of our first IPM implementations a question was raised resulting in another “link” in the supply chain.  In this situation, the construction industry was our focus. The client managed most elements of the project from project management software.

 

The ability to directly link the supply chain and project tasks was a great step forward.  However, after adding such links, independent demand still had to be manually updated and re-linked to tasks when a related project schedule or material requirement changed.  This naturally led to brainstorming on how such linking could be simpler.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/pmblog-v2.pngThe brainstorming raised an interesting question, “If we automatically link independent demand to a project task, why not also use automation to utilize project task data to generate, modify or delete independent demand?”

 

Ultimately, the result of the brainstorming killed two birds with one stone through the use of RapidResponse.  Now, two previously manual tasks (entering, maintaining independent demand and linking independent demand to the project) are automated.

 

Currently
With RapidResponse’s integrated project management (IPM), individual project tasks can be directly linked to supply chain independent demand or orders.  When material availability doesn’t support a project task, the discrepancy is immediately flagged.  Standard configuration options allows one to automatically re-schedule tasks based on the availability of independent demand and the orders they are linked to.  In either case, RapidResponse IPM provides visibility into the supply chain’s impact on a project, in order to identify and respond to conflicts.

 

Another Approach
When setting up IPM for use at a site, one could also use RapidResponse as the primary source to create project specific forecasts or actual independent demand.  The opportunity exists to populate independent demand orders and forecasts based on material requirements entered into a RapidResponse project plan using RapidResponse.  The quantity and timing of these independent demands would be defined and automatically adjusted based on the project tasks they are linked to.

 

When
When would it be most advantageous to drive forecasted and actual customer requirements directly from the project management tool?

 

 

 

Such a strategy is excellent for large, long projects that take months or years to complete and have one of a kind deliverables.  Examples of such projects exist in:

 

  • Construction
  • Ship building
  • High-tech projects for one-of-a-kind machines
  • Design and development phases of high-tech products before shifting to repetitive manufacturing

Often, in such projects, the key is to have the material on site at the time needed (i.e. build the foundation, clear land, prepare dry dock, utilize specialized materials in design experiments etc).  Managing the materials required for such projects can be managed within an ERP system, but this is often not the optimal tool, given that it was built primarily with repetitive manufacturing in mind.  Even more important, the ERP system is not linked into a project management tool.

 

Advantages
Organizations can consolidate project supply planning into a single source of record.  By generating independent demand from the project plan, there is no longer any need for the project management tool to operate in parallel with (as opposed to being integrated with) the entry of forecasted and actual independent demand entered in the ERP system.  This reduces/eliminates effort to manage, maintain, and audit forecasted and actual independent demand in the ERP System vs. the project management tool.

 

Teams can reduce or eliminate the need to build, manage, maintain special part numbers, BoM’s and routing to drive project material needs.  Without the existence of these specialized parts in an ERP system, a significant amount of cross-department coordination and management of the Engineering and Manufacturing groups who often own part, BoM and routing data could disappear.  This could be especially important if project demands on these departments are minor (and often 2nd priority) relative to the standard production work that may be their primary priority to support.

 

How
Convert IPM material requirements into independent demand by building commands in RapidResponse, IPM can become the data entry and maintenance point to enter material forecasts or orders required to support a project.

 

Such a strategy is facilitated by creating RapidResponse command(s) to:

 

  • Translate IPM task material requirements into independent demand orders or forecast orders
  • Link the newly generated independent demand order’s to the appropriate tasks

An important design consideration for any company taking such an approach is to determine if project based independent demand created in RapidResponse will be translated into independent demand in the host ERP system. Depending on customer needs it may not even be necessary to use independent demand in the host ERP system.  In such a case, independent demand satisfaction can be modeled in RapidResponse based on material receipt and consumption logic.   If, on the other hand, project independent demand is created/maintained within the host ERP system AND RapidResponse, a strategy must be developed defining how it will be they be maintained to be in sync across both systems.

 

Organizations can use tasks in a project with material requirements as one would a production order, Routing/BoM in a traditional ERP configuration to drive quantity/timing of independent demand.

 

Just as re-scheduling a production order or planned order can result in shifts in the timing of the material that is needed so do shifts in the timing of a Project Plan’s tasks.  In repetitive production environments scheduling of operations needed to build product is facilitated through a production order, routing and BoM.  In a RapidResponse project based environment, these variables are analogs to a project, task, and task material requirement (for those tasks with assigned material requirements).

 

 

 

Repetitive Mfg.RapidResponse IPM
Production OrderProject
RoutingProject Tasks
BoM LinesTask Material Requirements

 

 

A production order has a routing where each operation represents certain production operations that can either have specific material requirements linked to it.  In a RapidResponse, the project is analogous to a production order.  Individual tasks, within the project, serve a similar purpose of operations in a routing, albeit with a much broader variety of activities which must occur.  In RapidResponse, material requirements are linked with specific tasks in a project plan just as material requirements from a BoM for a production order can be linked to any step in a routing (though often in many industries all material in a production order are linked and kitted in step 1 due to the relatively short life cycle of a production order).

 

 

 

Implementation considerations

 

  • Volatility in a project plan could lead to fluctuating material requirement schedules that could be difficult and frustrating to react to by purchasing and within the production MES system.  This could be mitigated by a number of strategies.  One possibility would be to selectively deciding if/when particular tasks will result in forecasted or actual demands.  The commands to create independent demand could be conditionally based on such things as the timing of the resulting independent demand or the status of the task.
  • New business processes/responsibilities may need to be defined since the trigger to buy/build material for a project shifts to data entry made directly into the project plan.
  • Others are dependent on the unique requirements of the adopter.

 

 

In conclusion, integrating project management to the supply chain can reduce the number of manual project management and supply chain steps required for maintaining and meeting project timelines and budgets.

 

 

 

As I mentioned in my last blog, if you are interested in reading more about this topic, we published a white paper on this subject. The paper describes an integrated approach to project management which enables an organization to model all their projects and their entire supply chain together in one environment. I recommend checking it out to understand the business case for linking project management to the supply chain and to understand the specific capabilities that should be included.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Dan Nowicki at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/another-link-in-the-chain-using-project-management-to-drive-the-supply-chain/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/logo_top.pngNext week, we’re platinum sponsors of the European Supply Chain Summit and will host a workshop entitled, Delivering on the S&OP promise for the 21st Century – Effective, efficient, integrated.

 

This year’s theme is supporting growth through responsive and flexible strategies and will take place June 25– 27, 2013 at The Maritim Hotel in Berlin, Germany.

 

Workshop Details
Delivering on the S&OP promise for the 21st Century – Effective, efficient, integrated
Thursday June 27th at 11:55 AM – 12:35 PM, stream two

 

Join C.J. Wehlage, vice president, high-tech solutions at Kinaxis as he discusses how companies are moving to a weekly S&OP cadence with daily reviews, and are including finance, marketing, and R&D, not just sales and operations. Learn how S&OP becomes more effective, efficient, and integrated by doing concurrent planning across functions, at both volume and mix levels, considering both longer and shorter term issues.

 

Visit Kinaxis at the conference at booth # 56 and follow the hashtag #SCLEurope and @Kinaxis on twitter for event updates.

 

Presenter
Charles (CJ) Wehlage, vice president of high tech solutions
CJ joined Kinaxis in 2013 with the responsibility to guide the company’s industry strategy within the high tech vertical. With extensive experience, both as a supply chain practitioner and an industry research analyst, CJ serves as a strategic advisor to the company, while also supporting global field teams and working with prospects and customers as they define and pursue supply chain excellence strategies.

 

CJ has over twenty years of industry experience as a supply chain professional and researcher. Before joining Kinaxis he was vice president of high tech sales at Jonova, and previously, vice president of supply chain at Sony. He was also director of research at AMR Research for high tech value chains. In addition, CJ has held leadership roles at EMC, where he was responsible for third party enablement, outsourcing, and lean design; Apple, where he worked extensively in Asia and Silicon Valley; and, Bose where he led large scale Oracle and SAP ERP projects.

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/delivering-on-the-sop-promise-for-the-21st-century-effective-efficient-integrated/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agilent.gifA congratulatory shout out to our valued customer, Agilent Technologies who has recently won two awards for their global value chain.

 

Agilent received top honors, winning first place, at the Supply Chain Council Awards for their End-to-End Supply Chain Vertical Integration project for the Electronic Measurement Group. The Global Supply Chain Excellence Award recognizes organizations that demonstrate excellence in the design, operation or improvement of a supply chain. Agilent’s project addressed the need to provide end-to-end visibility and be responsive to customers, while supporting their growth. Their efforts resulted in faster response times to customer needs, reduction of inventory and cost savings.

 

The second honor Agilent received was for Frost & Sullivan’s Manufacturing Leadership Council Award in the Global Value Chain Category. The Manufacturing Leadership Awards honor companies and individuals that are shaping the future of global manufacturing.

 

We are incredibly proud of Agilent’s work and would like to extend our warmest congratulations to the team. To learn more about Agilent’s End-to-End Supply Chain, check out the complimentary case study, “Establishing A New View of the Extended Supply Chain” or the follow video interview with Yoke Sun Lieu, Head of Supply Chain Engineering, Electronics Measurement Business Group at Agilent.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/an-award-winning-vertically-integrated-supply-chain/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/First-Solar.jpgWe recently completed a case study with First Solar entitled: How First Solar is Achieving End-to-End Supply Chain Alignment.

 

First Solar is a maker of solar panels, as well as builder and manager of solar power plants. They have a complex product that’s part of an intricate supply chain; the Tempe-based business manages over 3500 suppliers and globally has over 33,000 people in their supply chain network.

 

This case study provides insights on how First Solar is operating effectively amid a volatile environment by achieving high levels of supply chain agility.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-17-2013-11-29-27-AM1.pngAs an example, First Solar is able to monitor inventory and understand inventory positions in minutes. They are also modeling sales orders, forecasts and shipments in RapidResponse along with finished goods inventory and projected supply. The team can now provide their Sales team with exact figures of what is available to sell. Within three months of using RapidResponse, they saw a ten percent reduction in overall inventory.

 

Here’s a quote from First Solar’s VP of Global Supply Chain, Shellie Molina:

 

“The implementation of RapidResponse as our single demand planning tool has given us the cross-functional visibility that we never had before and has opened up the opportunity for us to replace our siloed goals with common goals and objectives across planning functions.”

 

To learn more, download the case study here:

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/how-first-solar-is-achieving-end-to-end-supply-chain-alignment-a-case-study/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/techvalidate-research.jpgAs described in our first blog of the series, we recently completed a customer survey project with TechValidate and are very pleased with the over 150 survey responses and the many stories we can share. And so, every Friday for the next few weeks, we will feature different customer results.

 

In this series, we will explore the following topics:

 

Voice of the customer part 1: Supply Chain Flexibility
Voice of the customer part 2: Supply Chain Visibility
Voice of the customer part 3: Supply Chain Planning
Voice of the customer part 4: What-if Analysis
Voice of the customer part 5: Response Management
Voice of the customer part 6: Alternative Technologies
Voice of the customer part 7: Competitive Advantage

 

If you are eager to check out all the results, simply go to our TechValidate page. If you wish to use or share any of the content we’ve published to-date, click on the asset you wish to use and then select the download button to save. You can also choose the share button to distribute through various social media channels.

 

Next up, response management. We asked our customers how response rates had improved since implementing RapidResponse. As you can see from some of the responses we’ve captured below, customers have seen “exceptional” improvements in their supply chains. RapidResponse powers rapid planning and responses in their organization. Customers know the impact of simulated changes in seconds without having to rely on custom applications and reports; the result is instant impact analysis and the ability to identify the full impact of supply chain management decisions prior to execution.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog5SeriesD.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog5SeriesA.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog5SeriesC.png

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog5SeriesB.png

 

 

 

See more results on response management.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/banner1.png

 

 

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/voice-of-the-customer-70-surveyed-improved-response-rates-by-60-or-more/

NThe need for transparency in the supply chain – a tale from the garment trade

 

I was fortunate to attend the GT Nexus user conference this week in Hollywood Florida (GT Nexus is a Kinaxis strategic partner). I sat in on a panel discussion on how ERP data can be extended to global partners, and why this matters.

 

One of the presenters was describing how they can use this information to very quickly assess exposure when world events occur that put the supply chain at risk.  In this case, however, we are not talking about a traditional natural disaster situation but instead safety/ethical issues at the factories where their products are being made.  The example they gave was the garment factory disaster in Bangladesh last month.

 

Brand owners (those whose labels are on the products) face several challenges:

 

  • As these horrific events occur, customers are starting to look closer at the source of the products they buy.  They are starting to evaluate how and under what conditions products are made when making their buying decisions. As such, they are asking brand owners to reveal where products are made.
  • The problem is that in many cases, especially in the garment industry, brand owners often don’t know where, exactly, their product is made. Seem absurd? Perhaps. But consider this.  You are responsible for procurement of clothing branded for your company. Now, you could go to the individual factories and through a translator, negotiate contracts, navigate legal and governmental regulations, establish quality standards, figure out logistics, etc.  Or, you could create a single contract with a third party and have them take care of everything. However, that third party might also contract to a forth party, who actually arranges to have the goods made.  With this many levels of middlemen, it becomes very difficult to determine where your product is actually made.
  • If you were relying on this factory to manufacture your goods, you need to assess your supply chain exposure. At best there will be a lengthy delay before they can start producing again.  At worst, the factory won’t recover from this and you need to source elsewhere permanently.  You need to understand what impact this will have on revenues and customer satisfaction.

One of the companies on the panel discussion described how they are using technology to solve the sourcing issues. This garment company has approved a set of factories and equipped each approved factory with QR codes and readers. As the garment leaves the manufacturing floor, it is scanned and the manufacturing location of that garment is captured. This way, the manufacturer knows exactly where each garment is made. And to take it further, with the sourcing information on hand, they could use tools like RapidResponse and GT Nexus, to instantly assess their exposure when significant events occur.

 

Additionally, customers who want to know, can also scan the code (still attached to the garment) which brings them to a website that shows where the garment is made and the safety/working condition history of that site.

 

Are your customers asking for more information on where your products are sourced?  How are you dealing with these demands?  Comment back and let us know!

 

Originally posted by John Westerveld at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/the-need-for-transparency-in-the-supply-chain-a-tale-from-the-garment-trade/

A few weeks ago, Trevor Miles wrote a blog series entitled, “Truth, Lies, and Statistical Modeling in Supply Chain: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. In it, he discusses how companies often model manufacturing and supply chain systems using deterministic models, when in fact everything around us is stochastic. I thought it’d be important to mention that we also model project management using deterministic models, such as the Critical Path Method (CPM). Yet, we are living in a world where projects and tasks might actually follow a stochastic trend.

 

An alternative to CPM is Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), which is an effective method and gives you room to include as much variation into your projects as you want. It is used to analyze and evaluate the time needed to complete tasks in a given project, as well as to identify the minimum time needed for the completion of that project.

 

We know that a single task or project can be delayed for many reasons, such as unforeseen events, which force project managers to tie tasks to completely different predecessors or successors. This randomness forms a very important aspect for project management systems. We simply cannot assume any given project will be managed according to the targets set at the beginning of that project.

 

CPM was developed by Du Pont in 1960 and the emphasis was on the trade-off between the cost of the project and its overall completion time (e.g. for certain activities it may be possible to decrease their completion times by spending more money – how does this affect the overall completion time of the project?). CPM is used in production management for jobs that are repetitive in nature where the activity time estimates can be predicted with considerable certainty due to the existence of past experience.

 

When we look at the CPM being commonly used today, we see there’s something missing. This is due to the fact that CPM uses a deterministic model, which only incorporates a fixed time estimate for each activity. Although this is pretty easy to implement, it’s not sufficient for big-scale projects which can get complicated (and more variable) over time.

 

PERT was developed in 1958 by the US Navy for the planning and control of the Polaris missile program. The emphasis for this model was on completing the program in the shortest possible time. In addition, PERT had the ability to cope with uncertain activity completion times (e.g. for a particular activity the most likely completion time is 4 weeks, but it could be anywhere between 3 weeks and 8 weeks). PERT is often used in project management for non-repetitive jobs, for example, research and development work, where the time and cost estimates tends to vary.

 

PERT uses beta probability distribution, which in its essence, models the behavior of random variables and can be implemented by either using the statistical probability theory or discrete-event simulation. The way it is used in project management is through calculating the time allocated (Expected time) for the completion of a given activity. The way PERT deals with variation is its main differentiator. You determine the probability of any given activity to be successfully completed within three time estimates – optimistic (shortest), most likely and pessimistic (longest) times. These estimates (called random variables) represent the reasonable values you can give as the rate at which an activity can be possibly completed. Then, these time estimates are used in a weighted average assuming a beta probability distribution, and this weighted average forms the Expected time for a given task. Here`s how the Expected time is calculated:

 

Expected time = (Optimistic + 4 x Most likely + Pessimistic) / 6

 

 

 

Let’s dig into some background information now:

 

Pert Beta Distribution uses three parameters:

 

a: the optimistic time, which will be required if activity execution goes extremely well

 

m: the most likely time, which will be required if activity execution is normal

 

b: the pessimistic time, which will be required if everything goes badly

 

 

 

Depending on the values provided, the Pert Beta distribution can provide a close fit to the Normal or Lognormal distributions and it has:

 

Mean = (a + 4m + b) / 6

 

Standard Deviation = (b – a) / 6

 

 

 

Pert Beta distribution emphasizes the “most likely” value over the minimum and maximum estimates. It constructs a smooth curve which places progressively more emphasis on values around (near) the most likely value, in favor of values around the edges. In practice, this means that we “trust” the estimate for the most likely value, and we believe that even if it is not exactly accurate (as estimates seldom are), we have an expectation that the resulting value will be close to that estimate. Assuming that many real-world phenomena are normally (or log normally) distributed, the appeal of the Pert Beta distribution is that it produces a curve similar to the normal (lognormal) curve in shape, without knowing the precise parameters of the related normal (lognormal) curve.

 

The figure below shows three such distributions.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Naz-1.png

 

As I said, Pert Beta distribution emphasizes the “most likely” value over the minimum and maximum estimates. The figure below illustrates this effect and shows the various density function shapes that occur as m varies from 1 to 9 when a is 0 and b is 10.

 

multi-tier supply chainsLet’s now take a look at some characteristics:

 

CPMPERT
DeterministicProbabilistic
Estimates are based on historical dataEstimates are uncertain, there`s a probability that an activity will fall into a certain range
Concentrates on Time/Cost trade offMore suitable for planning
Scalable for smaller projectsSuitable for R&D projects
Explicit estimates on time and costIncludes subjectivity, depends on judgment for optimistic/pessimistic time estimates

 

 

So knowing the characteristics of these two different models, which one do you really need to implement? This totally depends on what type of project you are dealing with. Since PERT concentrates on variation and thus gives you the ability to be more flexible time wise, an R&D project would be a good fit considering the uncertainties a development work could have in the earlier phases of the project.

 

The following decision tree model can help you answer this question.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Naz-3.png

 

Still undecided? Well, consider that PERT can answer questions not applicable in CPM such as:

 

  • What is the probability that my task will take longer than…?
  • What is the probability that my task will be finished by…?

And, PERT can also be used for risk analysis and to identify potential opportunities and difficulties for the activities, as well as for the calculation of the worst case scenario. Imagine a famous band going on a world tour. They are on their way to play another concert that day in a neighboring country, but production trucks cannot cross the border because there is a strike at the border of the country they are currently in. To make it in time to perform, the truck has to cross the border by a certain time. In such a case, it’s out of the organizer’s (or project manager’s) control to project how long it will take until the production truck makes it to the concert area. To avoid such a situation, it’s more realistic to have implemented PERT, allowing some buffers between ongoing tasks, much like transporting rock stars between concert venues.

 

If you are managing a more conventional project with more predictable durations that can be accurately calculated and there’s no need to factor a possibility of changing requirements, then CPM is a good fit. For all other cases (and there would be many!), I recommend going with PERT. After all, like the transportation algorithm is a special case of the regular simplex method, CPM is simply PERT where a = m = b.

 

Originally posted by Nazli Erdogus at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/statistical-modeling-in-supply-chain-continued-when-should-we-incorporate-uncertainty-into-project-schedule-estimates/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/techvalidate-research.jpgAs described in our first blog of the series, we recently completed a customer survey project with TechValidate and are very pleased with the over 150 survey responses and the many stories we can share. And so, every Friday for the next few weeks, we will feature different customer results.

 

Voice of the customer part 1: Supply Chain Flexibility
Voice of the customer part 2: Supply Chain Visibility
Voice of the customer part 3: Supply Chain Planning
Voice of the customer part 4: What-if Analysis
Voice of the customer part 5: Response Management
Voice of the customer part 6: Alternative Technologies
Voice of the customer part 7: Competitive Advantage

 

If you are eager to check out all the results, simply go to our TechValidate page. If you wish to use or share any of the content we’ve published to-date, click on the asset you wish to use and then select the download button to save. You can also choose the share button to distribute through various social media channels.

 

Next up, What-if Analysis – we asked our customers to rate RapidResponse’s what-if scenario analysis. As you can see from these responses, the simulation capabilities within RapidResponse represent a core innovation and unique differentiator for our RapidResponse technology. The “what-if” analysis technology used to support scenarios allows thousands of simulations to be supported concurrently within a single instance of RapidResponse, which means it is ideal for supporting a large and diverse community of business roles and processes.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesB1.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesC.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesA.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesD1.png

 

 

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/banner1.png

 

 

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/voc-89-surveyed-rated-kinaxis-what-if-scenario-analysis-as-45-or-higher/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/techvalidate-research.jpgAs described in our first blog of the series, we recently completed a customer survey project with TechValidate and are very pleased with the over 150 survey responses and the many stories we can share. And so, every Friday for the next few weeks, we will feature different customer results.

 

In this series, we will explore the following topics:

 

Voice of the customer part 1: Supply Chain Flexibility
Voice of the customer part 2: Supply Chain Visibility
Voice of the customer part 3: Supply Chain Planning
Voice of the customer part 4: What-if Analysis
Voice of the customer part 5: Response Management
Voice of the customer part 6: Alternative Technologies
Voice of the customer part 7: Competitive Advantage

 

If you are eager to check out all the results, simply go to our TechValidate page. If you wish to use or share any of the content we’ve published to-date, click on the asset you wish to use and then select the download button to save. You can also choose the share button to distribute through various social media channels.

 

Next up, supply chain planning – we asked our customers if they were using RapidResponse for planning and what results were realized. As you can see, our customers are seeing significant improvements in their operations.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog3SeriesD.png

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog3SeriesC.png

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog3SeriesA.png

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog3SeriesB.png

 

 

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/banner1.png

 

 

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/05/voice-of-the-customer-94-surveyed-use-kinaxis-to-improve-planning-cycles-with-significant-results/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/techvalidate-research.jpg

 

In my first blog of this series, I explained how we recently completed a customer survey project with TechValidate. We are very pleased with the over 150 survey responses, and so, every Friday for the next few weeks, we will feature different customer results.

 

In this series, we will explore the following topics:

 

Voice of the customer part 1: Supply Chain Flexibility
Voice of the customer part 2: Supply Chain Visibility
Voice of the customer part 3: Supply Chain Planning
Voice of the customer part 4: What-if Analysis
Voice of the customer part 5: Response Management
Voice of the customer part 6: Alternative Technologies
Voice of the customer part 7: Competitive Advantage

 

Next up, supply chain visibility! We asked our customers about cross-functional alignment and supply chain visibility in their organization. As you can see from the following answers, our customers use RapidResponse to get easily accessible, up-to-date information from across the extended supply chain to make rapid decisions.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog2SeriesA1.png

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog2SeriesB1.png

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog2SeriesC2.png

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog2SeriesD1.png

 

If you are eager to check out all the results, simply go to our TechValidate page. If you wish to use or share any of the content we’ve published on our TechValidate page, click on the asset you wish to use and then select the download button to save. You can also choose the share button to distribute through various social media channels.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/banner1.png

 

 

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/05/voice-of-the-customer-techvalidate-research-on-kinaxis-rapidresponse-part-2/

null

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/techvalidate-research.jpgAs described in our first blog of the series, we recently completed a customer survey project with TechValidate and are very pleased with the over 150 survey responses and the many stories we can share. And so, every Friday for the next few weeks, we will feature different customer results.

 

Voice of the customer part 1: Supply Chain Flexibility
Voice of the customer part 2: Supply Chain Visibility
Voice of the customer part 3: Supply Chain Planning
Voice of the customer part 4: What-if Analysis
Voice of the customer part 5: Response Management
Voice of the customer part 6: Alternative Technologies
Voice of the customer part 7: Competitive Advantage

 

If you are eager to check out all the results, simply go to our TechValidate page. If you wish to use or share any of the content we’ve published to-date, click on the asset you wish to use and then select the download button to save. You can also choose the share button to distribute through various social media channels.

 

Next up, What-if Analysis – we asked our customers to rate RapidResponse’s what-if scenario analysis. As you can see from these responses, the simulation capabilities within RapidResponse represent a core innovation and unique differentiator for our RapidResponse technology. The “what-if” analysis technology used to support scenarios allows thousands of simulations to be supported concurrently within a single instance of RapidResponse, which means it is ideal for supporting a large and diverse community of business roles and processes.

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesB1.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesC.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesA.pnghttp://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Blog4SeriesD1.png

 

 

 

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/banner1.png

 

 

 

Originally posted by Melissa Clow at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/voc-89-surveyed-rated-kinaxis-what-if-scenario-analysis-as-45-or-higher/

I know, I know.  Do I really want to open up the debate on what is IBP?  I understand that it has been discussed at nausea, but I have to say that Michael Uskert’s presentation (Deconstructing Integrated Business Planning) last week at the Gartner Supply Chain Executive Conference did a good job with making some clear distinctions between S&OP and IBP and breaking down the process. For me, it all boiled down to a very evident analogy. IBP results when the supply chain has been a successful parent.

Does IBP Make Supply Chain Empty Nesters?

Consider this…

 

The supply chain gives life to new supply chain processes, grow it into S&OP, and help it mature.  In this stage, they are the owners of the process (the parents of the child).  They make most of the decisions and bring other people into fold as and when needed/desired. They are largely in control of the process and the outcome. And the network and circle of influence of S&OP for the most part is the supply chain (the parents) with specific involvement from neighboring functions (close family and friends).

 

But at some point, it’s time to fly the nest.  The process that the supply chain gave life to becomes bigger than them.  S&OP evolves into a business process (IBP), not just a supply chain process. The supply chain (the parents) remains a critical piece of the equation as an integral contributor and supporter, but it is no longer in the driver seat.  The process (the child) has grown and now has the foundation to mature beyond the home.  The original child, now an adult, makes decisions and takes actions that not only have a greater magnitude but they also impact and are influenced by a larger network of people. IBP spans multiple functions (including supply chain, marketing, sales and finance) across all time horizons, and is ever closely aligned with business strategy.  Its goals are broader and more strategic in nature.

 

A mature sales and operations planning is a foundational prerequisite for achieving IBP.  Eventually an adult will leave the nest, but they had to first be the child.  And as with parenthood, IBP is not a project, it’s a journey.  And given the state of S&OP right now, it would appear there is a lot of parenting for the supply chain left to do.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Lori Smith at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/does-ibp-make-supply-chain-empty-nesters/

http://blog.kinaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MP900427735.jpgMy daughter turned six earlier this month.  As her birthday approached, she was completely undecided as to what she wanted to do and not at all open to any of my very many suggestions (which is nothing new).  Two weeks before the big event, with no ideas and nothing booked, I knew that we needed to have a party at home, but I was at a loss as to what to organize.  Obviously, I knew the basic elements of a children’s party (cake, games, loot bags, etc…), but was less than inspired about pulling it together.  And then she had her brainwave.  She decided she wanted a Christmas-themed birthday party.  The minute she said it, the focus of the party was clear, I was totally on board, I was eager to be really creative and so excited at making it as successful as possible.  The loot bags were Christmas stockings, they played musical chairs with Christmas carols, the birthday presents were put under the Christmas tree, my husband was Santa, and my son was a party helper elf. So what turned the party from something that I felt I had to do, but was hazy and doubtful in how to approach it, to something that I passionately wanted to do and knew exactly how? The theme:  A Christmas Day in May.

 

What on earth does this have to do with supply chain?

 

I was at the Gartner Supply Chain Executive Conference May 21 – 23 and was struck with how many times I heard the notion of having a “theme” – and that was the specific term that was used … repeatedly.

 

It really came through in Matthew Davis’s session: “The Yes, But…” Value Chain: The Path to Profitable Trade Offs; however, I heard it in other sessions, and some elements of it during the keynotes with Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems and with Cummins, and even with Jim Collins, renowned speaker and author of “Good to Great.”

 

In Matt’s session he showed a laundry list of CEO priorities, many of which directly conflict with one another (expand into new markets and create new products and services … but reduce enterprise costs and standardize/streamline operations). If you tried to maximize each priority with every decision, you wouldn’t ever be able to make a decision.  Matt suggested that often the CEO priorities are both a combination of business results and the initiatives that will act as levers to create those results. The trick is to categorize the priorities according to which describe the long-term vision (broad and steady) or the short term strategy (specific and changing), and then from there, understand the unifying strategic theme.  The theme is what helps translate the vision into the cascading set of initiatives to act on.

 

Consider the case study example of one company’s vision to be the fastest to market. The theme centers on achieving differentiation through speed. You can then translate that into everything from the metrics you want to affect to the processes and programs you need to focus on.

 

By having the context of “fastest to market”, when supply chain decision makers are faced with a trade-off, there is a guiding principle in how they make their decisions.  There is a direct or implied value to certain performance measures over others. Defining the unifying theme ultimately helps operationalize corporate strategy, which is evidently a struggle for most. In 2012, Gartner asked 100 supply chain professionals what was impeding their demand driven value network (DDVN) maturity progress. Of the respondents, 85% were tied to people understanding what is needed and being convinced to participate.

 

Jim Collins talked about this issue in the context of leadership. His definition of a “Level 5” leader was one who was able to communicate a clear theme that their organization could identify with and rally around.  It gave direction and purpose to their cause. And, it can bring people together under the same set of values (and weed out those that may not share the same principles.)  Level 5 leaders don’t incite people to follow, they impassion people around ideas and goals.

 

Consider again the Gartner’s CEO study that listed off 15 varying priorities. Jim Collins said that if you have more than three priorities, you don’t have any.  If you have the direction to maximize this, while minimizing that, and achieve this while still achieving that – you can get lost along the way really easy. What is needed is an overall context for decision making.  What’s your motivation? In every action you take, what should your intention be?  In the face of complex and conflicting considerations, a unifying theme can give clarity to what decisions should be made, and what tradeoffs make sense.

 

I think the question everyone should be asking is, “Can you hold a theme party for your organization?”

 

Originally posted by Lori Smith at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/does-your-supply-chain-organization-need-to-throw-a-theme-party/

I attended the AMR…..er…Gartner Top 25 Supply Chain conference in the wonderful venue of the JW Marriott Desert Ridge, and what a week!

I missed the Palm Springs one last year so it was great to catch up with many old friends from my AMR Research days, from analysts to account leads to supply chain leaders.   Just so happens that I drove back from Arizona to San Diego.  Six hours in the desert!  Brings clarity…or insanity….well, there’s a fine line between them.

English: cliffs in judea desert, israel

So, I’ll take the heat up front.  I challenge you as a reader to respond…

 

“There needs to be a structural change to the Top 25 method”

 

Why?  Well, 6 hours of staring at the desert made me reflect on my “5 Bold Predictions for the 2013 Supply Chain Top 25” blog from a few weeks ago.
I had Amazon at #1, Coca-Cola at #2 and Intel at #3.   I had Dell falling out of the Top 10.  Got the Dell pick correct J

 

Intel did move up, but not to #3.  They got #5.  Directionally correct.  Intel has been out there speaking about their supply chain success, as well as creating end to end supply chain strategies with their partners.  I’ll put some of the blame on my good friend Stan Aronow.  Stan took the High Tech role I left at AMR, and my one piece of advice was to push your old company’s supply chain.  I did that with Apple, and Stan is doing bang up good job with Intel – he got them to #3 in the Gartner Opinion vote.

 

Coca-Cola was off.  They came in at #9.  Aside from Samsung, Apple and Amazon, Coca-Cola had the highest 3-Year Weighted Revenue growth for those above them, and the 4th highest Peer Opinion vote.  I do think their strategy on the bottling model will improve their margins & ROA, so I expect them to finish above #9 in 2014.

 

I would like to say something on Unilever #4 and P&G #6, but will leave that up to my buddy Roddy Martin’s blog J Plus, while Roddy gave me a ton of his insights, I forgot to bring a pen & notepad to the après Top 25 dinner gathering at the outside patio.

 

Then comes Amazon.  I had them at #1, but Amazon got #3.  However, since they got 3,315 in Peer Opinion vs McDonald’s 1,197, I think I’ll give a nod to my Amazon #1 pick.

 

Wait you say…what about Apple at #1?

 

Apple at #1 is exactly why I want to change the structure of the Top 25 Supply Chain model.  Apple got the highest Peer Opinion vote and the 6th highest Gartner Opinion vote.  I love Apple, one of the best companies I’ve ever worked for.  Love their products, my wife and kids are addicts to the next release.  But, supply chain knowledge of Apple?  What did Foxconn say, as they are a key, big supplier?  I’d love to hear what the channels say.  Have you been to the AT&T store a month after the release? They can’t tell you when they will have product available.  And then there’s Apple.  Outside of a few suppliers, who have talked in depth with Jeff, Ber, Dierdre, Rita, Sabih about their supply chain strategies?  Okay, Okay, I’ll stop venting…All this dry heat from the desert!

 

But, the Top 25 model should change, because the purpose has changed.  AMR started the Top 25 to “raise the awareness” of supply chain in the company.  Well, we got it.  Most supply chains are a part of the corporate discussion.  Thanks a bit to the recession to shine the light on cost controls.

 

There’s a new purpose, I believe.  And it came from Steve Steutermanns’ opening theme – FAST.  Not in our Plan/Buy/Make/Deliver functional silos.  Rather in the END-TO-END.  Top 25 Supply Chains should be measured on their speed to control End to End processes.   And in this measurement, there needs to be a unique set of people to validate this End to End speed.

 

Side venting note: leveraging one’s cash and market share position to force your suppliers and channels to jump should not be considered successful collaboration J

 

The voters need to change:

 

I give great props to my friend Lora Cecere.  She advocates doing a top supply chain by Industry.  I think that’s a great concept.  It would even make the Top 25 Dinner more interesting.  Something like a Top 10 by Industry.   It would open up the possibility of having smaller companies be recognized.

 

And, the most important part of this change would be to identify those key leaders in the Industry to vote.  These leaders are more likely to know the inner workings of the companies they vote for.  Jake Barr is a great example for CPG.  Roddy Martin is a great example for Beverage.  Dave Aquino is a great example for Apparel.   Hussain Mooraj is a great example for Life Sciences.  Angel Mendez is a great example for High Tech.  They could come from any area: supply chain leader, vendor, analyst, etc., but fit an unbiased criteria that they know the end to end supply chain network in that industry.  They’ve “talked” with at least 25 companies in that industry in the past year.   They can speak to the talent and leadership of each company, and validate their end to end focus.

 

The Metrics need to change:

 

I understand the need to have “readily available, audited” numbers, and that’s why there’s Revenue growth, ROA and Inventory Turns.  But, there’s got to be some better metrics to reflect Stage 4 & 5, End to End success!  Otherwise, iTunes and French Fries will keep crushing the turns competition….

 

If things were done by Industry, then ROA could be acceptable.  Companies in Chemical, Semiconductor, and Life Sciences would be compared equally.  I do agree with Lora that ROIC would be a better metric than ROA, as some companies are building assets to enable future growth.  Look at Amazon’s ROA – 1.9%.  Got them slotted behind McDonald’s but that investment in Services and Cloud infrastructure is the exact right strategy.  As well, depending on the life cycle of a drug, some Life Science supply chains may be great, but get low votes on ROA and Revenue growth.  Just wait until that drug goes live though….

 

My Solution:

 

Make it a Top 10 by Industry.   Have the #1 from each industry come up on stage at the Top 25 Dinner and accept the award, and make a pitch for their supply chain success.  Then, put all the #1’s from each industry on stage. Have everyone sitting at the dinner get on their mobiles and have a live vote for the overall #1 – makes for a fun evening and an exciting conclusion.

 

Voters would be a handful of key leaders from that industry.  They would have to prove they have talked with at least 25 companies inside that industry in the past year.

 

Make Four Key Metrics

 

1. End to End Focus:

 

  • Do they have an integrated end to end business planning process?
  • Can their outcomes be measured against value?
  • What is their speed in responding to change and how many nodes can they accurately assess the impact?

2. Ability to Translate Demand into a Profitable Response

 

  • Measure of their marginal profitability – i.e. their ability to achieve and maintain profit levels
  • Market share – Are they #1 or #2 in their market?

3. Leadership and Talent

 

  • This is a soft measure, but can be seen in a supply chain’s ability to reach out and learn. Do they engage externally with the academic world? Do they share their supply chain successes and strategies?

4. Agility in the Supply Chain network

 

  • Ask their top 2 Suppliers to rate them on flexibility
  • Ask their top 2 Customers to rate them on flexibility

I’ve tested some parts of this model.  One company that has nailed the end to end focus, gets praises from their suppliers, engineering team & customers/install partners, and has one of the top leadership teams in the country, is NCR.  There’s been some papers written about NCR, but this is the classic example of a top tier supply chain that didn’t make the 2013 Top 25 and seriously should have.

 

So, this is it.  My new Top 25 Supply Chain model.  It’s going to take some adjustments and elbow grease, but let me know your thoughts and concepts, and I will take it to Oz and see what can be achieved!

 

In Closing:

 

We’ve passed the challenge of making the CEO and the “Board” aware of supply chain.  It’s time to redesign the structure.  Steve Steuterman had it correct.  “Fast”.  There’s a foundational shift in supply chain.  Gone are the days of functional excellence.  Gartner calls it Stage 4 and Stage 5.  I call it End-To-End engagement.   Knowing a LOT sooner, and Acting a LOT faster – regardless of the functional tools, functional processes, and functional data.  I’ve been doing this supply chain gig for 24 years, and I’m more excited today about what’s happening.  You can see those companies that are acting end to end.   They have the ear of the CEO, and they are executing a new supply chain concept – the End to End concept.

 

Originally posted by CJ Wehlage at http://blog.kinaxis.com/2013/06/400-miles-in-the-desert-what-happened-to-my-supply-chain-top-25-picks/

Filter Blog

By date: By tag: