I stumbled across this topic for this week’s blog by accident while browsing the web. Although this is not related to supply chain technology, I thought it was sufficiently high-tech to merit some general interest. I hope you find the topic as interesting as I do.

To begin, let’s review how color photographs are produced by digital cameras. The sensor in a camera cannot directly see color – it can only see intensity of light. When you see a camera advertised as “10 megapixels,” it means there are 10 million light-sensitive photoreceptors on the camera’s “digital film” chip. These photoreceptors record the intensity of the light that falls on them, from zero (black) to high intensity (white). Left to themselves, they produce a black and white image.

But for color, light needs to be broken into primary wavelengths of red, green, and blue (RGB). Combining these three colors in varying intensities creates the full spectrum of color. This is how a digital camera produces a color image. Each photoreceptor in the camera is fitted with an individual red, green, or blue lens that filters the light that falls onto the sensor. 

With this RGB filter in place, the digital information records varying intensities of red, green, and blue light at discrete points in the image. Powerful image-processing algorithms scan this information into the onboard microprocessor’s memory.

 

On high-end digital cameras, you can change the behavior of the algorithm by setting values for hue, intensity, white balance, contrast, and other variables. The electronics in the camera then go to work to produce a color image from individual pixels of red, green, and blue light intensity information. 

The scientific fact that color can be generated from red, green, and blue light has been known since well before the invention of photography. Since the late 1800s, there have been laboratory experiments in color photography. Technological factors, however, limited the practical majority of photographic images to black and white up until the late 1930s (and it was not until the 1960s that color came to the mass market, as immortalized by the Simon and Garfunkel song “Kodachrome”). 

Here’s the really interesting part: On my web search, I found that there was one early photographer who developed an elegant approach to color photography. He was a Russian named Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii. He was familiar with theories that one could create a color image by taking successive black and white images through red, green, and blue filters.

 

The three black and white images would show the same scene, but differ in shading and light intensity according to the filter used. 

Ahead of his time, in the early 1900s, Prokudin-Gorskii built a custom camera to accomplish this task.

He also built a projector that would allow him to show audiences color images projected on a screen. He was successful enough that the Tsar commissioned him to go on a photographic expedition to document the Russian Empire. These trips occurred from 1905–1915. 

The expedition produced thousands of glass plate negatives. These could be printed and displayed as conventional black and white images for publication and exhibition. However, the projection apparatus needed for producing the color images limited the practical extent to which the images could be published in full color.

Then came the Russian Revolution, which was a disaster for Prokudin-Gorskii and all other friends of the Tsar. He fled Russia. His collection of glass plate negatives ultimately wound up in the archives of the US Library of Congress, where they sat in obscurity.

With the advent of digital photography, a curator in the Library of Congress realized that the Prokudin-Gorskii photographs could be displayed in a manner never before possible. In 2004, the Library of Congress commissioned a restoration project. Each set of negatives was scanned into a computer, aligned, and color-adjusted in exactly the same manner as an image is produced within a digital camera.

 

The results were glorious. They are viewable at the Library of Congress website at the following link: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

These photographs represent a treasure trove of historical documentary images. They also represent the perfect combination of scholarship, luck, and high-tech restoration.

-- Paul

 

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

I’ve recently toured several distribution center operations while evaluating new technology options. And one recurring improvement initiative that stood out at each of these sites is the pursuit of increased productivity. Nowadays, considering the constrained capital environment and short-term focus on operational budget performance, opportunities to invest in new technology are met with great optimism.

During my visits to these facilities, I noticed that the distribution and warehouse managers had very specific views of where and how they intended to leverage their technology investment – whether it be enhanced WMS functions that provide the ability to flow product from receipt directly to shipping or automated picking equipment options that can minimize direct labor for items in storage. 

Looking at the specific tasks identified by the DC managers for productivity improvement, their vision for the application of technology enhancement is accurate: The combination of WMS functions and automated material handing and picking technology will indeed increase the productivity in comparison to the current processes. But how much of those efficiencies are going to be relinquished through the inbound/outbound efforts feeding this process?

In some instances, the DC manager’s vision neglected the additional effort required to bring material into and out of the proposed automated picking application. They also did not factor in the effort required to consolidate multiple process/material flows for shipping. 

As I attempted to address how the proposed new process/technology applications would integrate into the existing operational flows, our discussions quickly reverted back to overcoming specific process challenges in the automation application. 

I wanted to take the conversation a step back and understand how this proposed application of technology could be leveraged across more the DC picking operations. But the DC manager was focused on the details of execution in one area rather than digging into how the proposed improvements impact the operation as a whole.  

My approach to productivity improvement is different. 

I start with a view of the overall operational metrics first (the forest). Only with a clear understanding of all requirements and constraints for a specific operation do I begin to dig into specific solution types (the trees) to support productivity improvements. 

In this particular case, you have to ask yourself: 

• Is the productivity enhancement that will be achieved by this order/SKU-specific technology approach sufficient to overcome the additional effort necessary to bring material into the system and then reintegrate completed order lines back into the main order flow? 
• Have you recognized the additional effort necessary to support automated process? 
• Have you considered how this additional effort will impact your new-found picking efficiencies?

The temptation to develop and execute point-specific technology-driven productivity enhancements is quite common. It’s easy to get sucked into the nuances of eking’ out every operational challenge and efficiency opportunity from a new technology application rather than spending time to understand the solution’s impact on the entire operation. 

This is a common reason why some technology-driven warehouse improvement initiatives struggle to achieve the overall productivity objectives expected by executive management.

For those of you who are ready to quickly implement changes that will drive productivity improvements, be careful what you wish for. Take the time to develop an in-depth, well-thought-out plan. Make sure to consider your point-specific technology applications within the context of your entire DC operation.

Points to ponder in your quest for productivity improvement:

• Get a clear picture of the forest – Make sure you have a clear understanding of the top-line DC operational performance. Evaluate all improvement options against the impact of the overall performance metrics for the operation.
• Work the processes from biggest to smallest – Look at the areas that require the most labor first. Sometimes the smallest improvements applied across the biggest area of labor can produce the best balance of investment and technology risk to productivity improvement.
• Look for common solutions first, and then consider specific solutions – Search for processes/technology solutions that can support the broadest range of order types and SKU mix. Technology-driven solutions can be expensive and risky when not properly planned. As a result, technology-driven solutions typically see the best payback when they’re applied across as much of the order volume as possible. Only after you have exhausted all the common options should you go down the path of order/SKU-specific technology-driven improvement initiatives.

-- Kevin

Using advanced shipping notifications (ASNs) in the warehouse may be old news for some, but there are others who are still building their knowledge on this topic. So, while thinking about what I would like to share with you on the blog this week, I thought this would be a good topic for beginners, and some of our readers who are seasoned ASN users may want to share their thoughts as well.

To begin, supply chain best practice tells us that we should be making use of ASNs for WMS-based inbound activity in the warehouse. This applies to many industries and is a key competitive advantage for many retailers and wholesale distributors. 

ASNs supplied by vendors and transportation service providers allow for streamlined inbound processes, warehouse planning, demand planning and reconciliation. The ASN provides key information on the inbound shipment, including:

When taken into the broader context of the overall supply chain, the ASN also provides key information to support:

With the evolution of software technology, the alternatives for breaking into ASN-based processing are greater and more flexible than ever. Here are a few tools and approaches for you to consider:

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Approach – Generally, this approach leverages the existing processes in place for using EDI to manage financial transactions, purchase order transmissions and customer order transmissions. EDI has a somewhat complex deployment for trading partners who are not accustomed to delivering supply chain information, but as a benefit, it centralizes transaction processing onto platform many companies already use.

WMS Vendor-provided Integration Tools – Your WMS vendor may provide the tools required to effectively collect information from your trading partners. A big advantage is that it’s ready out-of-the-box to integrate with the WMS.

Specialized Supply Chain Visibility Tools – Supply chain visibility tools are an extremely robust mechanism and are becoming easier to deploy. Many – such as a SaaS (software as a service) model – eliminate the headache typically associated with new systems infrastructure (servers, network, etc) implementation. 

External Service Provider Approach – As has been the case for some time, there are well-qualified service providers on the marketplace who can accept ASN information in a variety of formats (EDI, flat file, email, fax, paper) from your trading partners and quickly turn the data around for your format and content needs. So, you don’t need an internal process.

There are several additional approaches which can be examined, including a hybrid of the above or your own custom-developed solution (such as a trading partner web portal). The first step is defining what works best for you and your heaviest trading partners, and considering what the less-sophisticated end of the spectrum can live with as well. 

I’d be interested in hearing about what you’re doing in either a mature environment where you’ve been using ASNs or whether you’re evaluating an approach for entry.

- Matt

 

 

 

As Paul Faber pointed out in his recent blog post, Walmart will soon begin applying removable RFID tags to individual items to improve inventory control and visibility inside stores. The theory is that tagging individual articles should reduce stock outs, shrinkage, and misplaced inventory while increasing labor productivity and shelf availability. 

This move toward item-level tagging may very well help push RFID to the next level in the supply chain world. I have long seen the retail store floor as being a key factor in the technology’s adoption. But I also believe that product authentication is another key driver in making the case for RFID. The vision for its role is well delineated by GS1 and its affiliate EPCGlobal.  

This vision is based on assigning a serial number at manufacturing or packaging to each item or sellable unit. This serial number must be unique across the global supply chain. It is stored in a data repository that can be updated as the item changes hands throughout the supply chain. Anyone taking custody of the item would be able to query the serial number against the repository to see if the item is registered or if there is anything suspicious about its history. This vision needs a physical data carrier to accompany each item that can store rather lengthy item-level serial numbers and be easily read throughout the supply chain.  RFID tags are a good fit for this role.

This type of authentication should help reduce counterfeiting, theft, and fraud, which are a bane to many industries. But there are few places where combating this pestilence matters more than in the pharmaceutical industry – an industry that definitely could benefit from higher visibility and security. I’ve seen estimates on worldwide annual industry losses due to counterfeit drugs as high as $75B. 

Safety is another key concern, as counterfeiting impacts the content and potency of delivered product. Mass serialization at the sellable unit level has been positioned as a tool for product authentication by legislation, regulations, and industry and standards organizations.

Brazil and Turkey are currently in the process of deploying pharmaceutical product authentication through mass serialization. Various European countries have piloted similar programs utilizing a ‘book-end’ approach with a single commissioning and authentication event. The latter occurs at the hospital or pharmacy. 

In the US, states have been addressing the problem through ePedigree laws and regulations, which focus on tracking the chain of custody. California’s ePedigree requirements – due to go into effect in 2015 – require serialization at the sellable unit level. Given the effort required to be compliant, many pharmaceutical manufacturers are already pursuing solutions to support these requirements.

RFID is not the only data carrier capable of supporting a global standard for serialization at the unit level. High density or 2-D barcodes can also be used for mass serialization. Brazil’s and Turkey’s requirements are based on GS1 DataMatrix bar code symbology. Europe also appears to be embracing the DataMatrix bar code as the foundation for pharmaceutical product authentication. 

And I have a feeling that most US-based manufacturers and distributors are looking toward 2-D bar codes rather than RFID tags as the vehicle to meet serialized ePedigree requirements.

There are certainly RFID success stories in the pharmaceutical industry. But when 2015 finally arrives, I wonder if it will still be more of a niche player in pharma than a mainstream auto-id technology. 

In a high-margin industry, a $.08 to $.10 passive tag on each sellable package shouldn’t matter that much. So I find the limited enthusiasm for RFID in pharma somewhat perplexing, especially since it provides advantages over 2-D bar codes that go beyond regulatory requirements. But I appreciate performance concerns and challenges. 

More importantly, we tend to look at RFID’s cost purely from a tag perspective. Infrastructure must also be taken into account. Image scanners and cameras are much more commonplace in the supply chain than RFID readers and software.

I’m still a believer in RFID. I think the ‘Internet of things’ will have a major impact upon the supply chain. But I’m not sure the RFID adoption rate will be going into overdrive anytime soon. I think that RFID still remains more of an evolutionary proposition than a radical transformation agent within the supply chain world – at least for the time being.

-- Tom

Additional Resources:

Documenting Distribution Operations: FDA Validation Beyond the Laboratory and Manufacturing Facility (White Paper)
http://www.tompkinsinc.com/publications/monograph/white-papers/fda.asp

 

 

The recent big news in supply chain information technology is the return of Walmart to industry leadership in retail RFID deployment. An article in the Wall Street Journal reports that Walmart is deploying RFID tags for individual clothing items at its US stores. Read the full story here.

To my knowledge, this is the first use of RFID technology for tagging individual pieces of mass market budget clothing. 

The RFID tags will be included on removable attachments (such as price or size tags) that the consumer can discard once the garment is purchased. This is in contrast to the practices of some high-end clothing retailers who sew RFID tags into the clothing as a means of protecting against counterfeit couture.

Walmart’s goal for this technology deployment is to increase sales by reducing out-of-stock conditions on the retail floor. That is, sales associates can use portable RFID readers to quickly scan an area to identify missing sizes or styles of clothing, and the missing SKUs can then be moved from backroom stock or ordered for replenishment from the warehouse. 

A secondary goal is to prevent “shrinkage” from the backroom stock; employees are less likely to steal from inventory if they know the items can be automatically tracked out the door. 

These goals are nothing new, of course. They have been part of the technology goals for RFID for years. 

Until Walmart’s announcement, the impediment to item-level RFID tagging has been the cost of the RFID tag. This has limited the use of RFID tags to case or pallet quantities – or to high-dollar-value individual items such as designer clothes and shoes. Therefore, from a technology and ROI perspective, the fact that Walmart is deploying item-level RFID tagging to low-cost clothing is big news. 

Speaking of ROI, I think the Wall Street Journal buried the lead in their article. They waited until the end of the article to note that Walmart is subsidizing the cost of the tagging program for their manufacturers, which means that we’ll have to wait for more data to decide if item-level tagging is economically justified when the full cost of each RFID tag is factored into the value proposition.

To give you an idea of the ROI that these types of projects could see, I would like to share with you some facts from a couple of articles that I have written over the past few years. In 2006, for example, the Mitsukoshi department store in Japan published the results of item-level tagging of high-end women’s shoes. The RFID tags allowed associates to accurately and quickly find the customer’s size (previously a problem in the stockroom), which resulted in a 10% increase in sales due to more accurate inventory data. (Read more in this IndustryWeek RFID Strategy Newsletter article.)

Likewise, the Walmart RFID pilot in 2007 reported a 13% reduction in out-of-stock conditions for the SKUs tracked. (Read more here.) So it is likely that the current RFID effort at Walmart will see improvements in the range of 10-15% prior to accounting for the cost of the tags.

Walmart has been a prominent pioneer in RFID technology. The company began to elicit interest in RFID several years ago by kicking off their retail pilot project, and this new development of item-tagging clothing is sure to lead to more interesting times in supply chain RFID.

-- Paul

 

 

Photo Credit: Myuibe  

Recently, I found myself looking over market research in an effort to assess the impact of the global financial crisis and subsequent business downturn on Supply Chain Management (SCM) Applications. 

For the purpose of this blog, I’m talking about the 10 software application groups that you typically find within SCM which include – Inventory Optimization, Performance Management, RFID, Sales & Operations Planning, Network Design, Global Trade Compliance, Supply Chain Planning, Sourcing, Transportation Management Systems (TMS) and Warehouse Management Systems (WMS).

As expected, many of the current realities of the overall business climate are reflected in the actions of supply chain managers. Specifically the top priorities today and in the near term highlight a tactical focus on: 

This ongoing, narrow focus on tactical execution is one of the reasons that the SCM application market – despite the economic uncertainties – is still projecting more than 10% annual growth through 2012. 

The High: Based on the overall outlook from my research I thought, “Wow, this is really great news for TMS providers and for customers who are either in need of a TMS upgrade or building a TMS business case.” If you can find a way to secure the capital and IT support, there doesn’t appear to be a better time than now – especially when you consider the looming transportation-related cost increases associated with carrier capacity and steadily increasing transportation demands placed upon downsized carrier networks.

The Low: However when I looked deeper in the details, specifically the most recent SCM application market penetration survey by Gartner (Q4-2009), I could not believe my eyes. In fact, I actually had to pull out a ruler and make sure my eyes were lining up the numbers properly. 

According the survey respondents – a group that comprised of supply chain practitioners responsible for the planning and management of SCM applications –TMS applications have had the third lowest deployment ranking of the 10 SCM application categories over the last 10 years. 

The only SCM applications with fewer deployments than TMS are RFID and GTM. TMS applications actually ‘tie’ with network optimization applications as the third smallest of the 10 SCM applications studied in the market penetration survey. However, the market penetration view represents deployments performed to date. So you have to ask, “What about the forward view – surely there has to be a larger proportion considering TMS in future plans?”

Again, the survey responses seem inconsistent with the current business and economic realities. Looking forward, respondents ranked RFID, GTM and TMS most frequently as the applications that they have no current plans to deploy. It becomes even more curious when you consider that both RFID and GTM span a much smaller supply chain footprint than TMS. But how can this be? 

Transportation spend is a key source of supply chain cost, yet the majority of practitioners surveyed either don’t use TMS or have current plans to even consider deployment. I suspect that as the recession recovery drags along, we’re going to see a continued focus on productivity-efficiency improvements as well as cost containment initiatives. Hopefully, in addition to that, TMS applications will become a much more relevant topic for consideration in supply chain improvement initiatives.

Do you have any thoughts on this disconnect – why TMS has achieved so little overall market penetration over the last 10 years?

Next time around, we’ll take a look at the other side of the market penetration survey. Until then, do you have any projections on where and why the most substantial market share exists and where the greatest interest lies for future SCM deployments? 

-- Kevin

 

 

 

 

Photo Credit: rutlo

Recently I was reading an article in CIO Magazine that quoted various CIOs on the key steps for selecting a new ERP system. One CIO made a very astute observation on the need to select a vendor that you can partner with closely to ensure delivery as promised. While I couldn’t agree more with the statement, it raises the question about the meaning of “partnership” when it comes to selecting and implementing enterprise and supply chain information technology systems. 

It is easy to focus on the remark “ensure delivery as promised” when attempting to define a relationship with a prospective vendor. And many organizations approach this objective by adding service level agreements (SLA) and performance stipulations into vendor contracts. (If you have the leverage, this is certainly a prudent approach.)

These SLAs are similar to prenuptial agreements. And while prenups may not be very romantic, they’re certainly practical – a binding contract for both parties. 

By holding a vendor accountable, contractual remedies can help ensure successful implementations and ongoing support. But they are only part of the equation in the pursuit of a successful delivery: The ability to work closely together is another key component. I think it is more important than putting stipulations into SLAs.

Whether we’re talking marriage or selecting a software vendor, partnership implies a two-way relationship based on compatibility. 

In his Are all Cats Really Gray in the Dark? blog, Kevin Hume talked about the importance of doing a cultural comparison with the software provider during a software selection. He cited mismatches in capabilities, approach and culture between customer and software provider as typically resulting in poor implementation performance, unfulfilled expectations, and higher than expected costs. So, as those online dating service commercials suggest, a compatibility comparison may not be such a bad idea.

“Partnership” is a term frequently tossed about when people attempt to define vendor-customer relations. But when you are looking to select a new software vendor, what objectives do you have in mind? How do you determine compatibility? 

While willingness to agree to robust SLAs is a good indicator of your prospective partner’s faith in the proposed relationship, it is not a real measure of compatibility anymore than willingness to sign a prenuptial agreement.

Assessing compatibility requires getting down to the details to answer some key questions. Functional fit and capabilities are certainly important, but the success of your implementation also depends on vendor services and personnel. 

• How well do the strengths and weaknesses of your internal resources match up to the vendor’s capabilities?
• Do you really understand the vendor’s delivery approach and support services? 
• Have you clearly defined what is expected from the vendor? 
• Do you clearly understand what the vendor expects from you?

Unfortunately, you can’t rely on the vendor’s sales team to be the ultimate source of these answers. They have a vested interest in making the sale. You have to make the final call on compatibility and what supply chain partnership means to your organization. This requires that you do your due diligence before you say “I do.”

-- Tom

 

Photo credit: apdk

It is a sad fact of life that systems tend to degrade over time. Performance and reliability are inversely related to age. I only have to ponder my physical condition to appreciate this observation. 

This principle also applies to commercially available business systems. It is one reason why companies subscribe to software maintenance agreements. As long as you pay your annual fee, you are eligible to receive and install new releases as well as utilize help desk services.

Many operations running top-tier warehouse management systems and other supply chain execution products grapple with a software maintenance conundrum. They typically pay an annual maintenance fee ranging between 18-22% of original license fees. This gives them access to vendor support services. Also, it generally gives them the right to install new version releases for the covered product. 

However, installing these upgrades can be an expensive proposition, especially if your solution has been highly customized. 

For some folks the cost of an upgrade may represent a substantial portion of their original investment. So an upgrade can be an extremely tough proposition to sell to top management, especially if your system is running just fine as is. 

Even if you properly accounted for it in your original total cost of ownership (TCO) calculations, when it comes time to commit the investment for an upgrade, you inevitably face the question, why fix it if it isn’t broke? 

Unfortunately software vendors can force your hand by imposing an end-of-life deadline on support contracts for a particular version. Cross that deadline and these services are available only on a time and materials basis.

Depending on the package and situation, this prospect may be acceptable to some organizations. They can continue to get reliable support from the vendor, third parties, or internal resources well beyond the date that the vendor ceases offering support under an annual contract for the particular version. 

But many others can’t risk this approach. Their complex solutions run under complex technology stacks with databases, operating systems, application servers, integration middleware, and other third-party software that all must be periodically upgraded to remain on support. They know that the quality of support will only continue to decrease once this deadline is crossed.  

As a software package continues to evolve in functionality and technical architecture, it gets harder to find support resources that can effectively deal with issues for outdated versions. Things can change that much. 

Also, the likelihood of failure can also increase with older releases, especially when the application sits upon a complex stack of hardware and other software that you may not be able to update due to compatibility issues. This can put the business at risk, as it may take an unacceptable amount of time to get a mission critical application up and running again.

Staying within supportable life span isn’t the only reason why distribution operations choose to install an upgrade. New functionality, as well as technology platform and facility changes can factor into the decision making process. 

But many operations wrestle with the decision primarily from a supportability perspective. In this situation, making the decision to pull the trigger on a costly upgrade can produce major organization angst. You can only know for sure that you waited too long when your application goes into cardiac arrest.

 

These observations aren’t news to most supply chain operations that face this upgrade paradox. They know that sooner or later they must bite the bullet and upgrade or replace key applications. 

Given the general state of the economy over the past couple of years, it has been exceptionally tough to launch any upgrade project that involves a major expenditure. But the longer you wait, the more it can cost. And for some folks the cost of upgrading can easily approach the replacement price.

No wonder SaaS solutions can be so intriguing. Let someone else worry about keeping the application and its technology stack up to date. 

Unfortunately, SaaS solutions probably aren’t viable solutions for many top-tier applications where customization is still the norm. After all, customization is a key reason why upgrades can be such a headache. User extensibility and rule-based engines all offer the promise of zero modifications. But this promise is still in the future for many operations and applications. In the meantime, many operations must still grapple with the upgrade conundrum.

--Tom

In a recent strategy discussion, I was talking with several colleagues about industries that have the greatest level of supply chain adaptability and advancement. Not surprisingly, we kept bringing up companies using innovative supply chain technology in the consumer electronics industry. 

Not only is this industry robust in terms of product innovation, but it is also leading other industries in terms of implementing and utilizing new technology for its supply chain needs.

But why is this? Is it just the nature of the industry to be adaptable since consumer electronics are known to be always changing? (As we all know, nowadays with consumer electronics, there’s not much time for a product to become outdated before the “next big thing” is already hitting the shelves.)

Here are several reasons why I believe that the consumer electronics industry is at the forefront of supply chain information technology utilization:

Highly complex supply chain for components - The growing number of available suppliers, numerous supply constraints, and a changing supplier base are driving the competitive need to be adaptable, especially on the front-end of product introduction or the unpredictable back-end of the product lifecycle. 

Broad set of demand channels - Brick-and-mortar and direct fulfillment are the two primary channels for distribution in the industry. However, hybrid approaches, which dovetail off of these two channels, are being tested and expanded regularly. A few examples of demand channels constantly being expanded include online advertising, coupons, and linkages as well as gift cards being distributed through various means for retail and customer-direct storefronts.

Loads of information available - Information from suppliers, retailers, industry associations and sales channel partners leads to a massive set of potential information available for forecasting demand and supply needs as well as managing performance. Traditional Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) is being supplemented with rich Point of Sale (POS) data and consumer behavior data, which provide a meaningful portfolio with a broad range of possibilities for enhancing the supply chain information flow.

Lean and competitive marketplace being continuously reinvented - Competition for market share and margin in today’s very efficient business world require that the technologies put in place are forward-thinking and cost-effective. Information technology that drives the supply chain for long-term market leaders will allow little margin for error in meeting functionality and performance needs.

Promising outlook for continued growth - Results from a recent study by About.com indicate that 2010 and beyond looks positive for consumer electronics. Among the key findings, at least two-thirds of consumers are planning to spend as much as or more than they did in a somewhat disappointing 2009. In 2010, effectively managing supply and demand through the use of IT will allow companies to stay nimble and build on their position in the marketplace.

Convergence of Product Lifecycle Management, Supplier Relationship Management and Global Trade Management - All of these areas have set the stage for integrating disciplines that are traditionally handled separately. The true leaders in IT for the consumer electronics marketplace are developing solutions that merge capabilities for all of these disciplines in a harmonious way. As the software innovation continues to keep pace with the innovative market, we will see more advanced solutions that will lead the way for other industries.

So, for consumer electronics companies to keep up with others in their highly dynamic, fast-paced industry, it’s almost a necessity for them to keep their supply chain information technology current. 

As always, I look forward to your comments and insight on what you’re experiencing.

- Matt