"X" marks the spot for buried treasure, and I’ve been trying to find "X" since I was a youngster. No, I haven’t been walking around in a pirate hat with a map in one hand and a metal detector in the other. But I have had a piece of paper in one hand and a pen in the other – or since the mid-90s, a mouse and keyboard.

When I say, I’m trying to find "X," I’m really looking for the contingency factors in budgets and schedules that account for the unknown. And, of course, "X’ is always present in the IT world. From concept design thru detailed specifications, it is a way dealing with what we don’t know in our plans.

For example, early in my career many eons ago, my job was to provide initial estimate modification costs to support sales interactions for a CMMS vendor. Generally, the information I received to create the estimate came from a sales guy who provided a high-level description of a potential client’s need, usually based on a 10-minute conversation with the prospect.

At the time, my contingency approach was to estimate the development hours based on the stated need. I then doubled this estimate and applied a 20% bump on top of this total. While I was occasionally on target, some of my estimates eventually turned out too low – understandable since I really didn’t have detailed requirements.

My approach may seem quaint in retrospect, but luckily, I wasn’t responsible for the economic impact of my estimates on making the sale. Someone else would decide on the price quoted to the prospect.

Since those times so long ago, I have had to account for contingency on a wide variety of projects. I’ve also seen how numerous IT departments deal with the issue. Some employ a very structured approach concerning contingency, starting with a 50% plus or minus factor during initial concept design and driving down to 10% plus or minus, with detailed technical specifications. However, many still end up overrunning their budget plus contingency on supply chain projects.

This isn’t too surprising on supply chain execution system projects in which considerable process re-engineering occurs. The complexity inherent in these projects is fertile ground for unknowns. But there are other factors that present challenges when accounting for contingencies in these types of projects.

First, we have a vested interest in the resulting number, as approval of a project or modification is dependent on costs. Most folks believe they approach the process honestly. But the process tends to make optimists out of us.

Next, whenever a contingency number is placed on the table, there is an inevitable drive to reduce it. As we do our necessary homework, it is hard not to say that we have significantly reduced the unknowns. Contingencies can end up in the crosshairs when trying to make a business case work.

Finally, many approach contingency as accounting only for unknown requirements and hidden development complexity. But people aren’t perfect, and they tend to make mistakes. These mistakes can go beyond programming bugs touching all aspects of a project.

So how much contingency is enough? I’m not suggesting a double-the-number-plus-20% approach. But we need to step back and look at how honest we are with our processes. We need to evaluate the contingency factors that we use and resist the pressures to eviscerate them as we finalize our budgets and specifications. We need to learn to appreciate that we don’t know what we don’t know.

Do you have a better approach? How do you find "X"?

-- Tom

Photo credit: ShadBolling

If you listen to some financial talking heads and political pundits, things in the economic world are much better, and the path ahead is clear (if you believe Vice-President Joe Biden). If you listen to some folks on the other side of the spectrum, we’re all doomed and you’d better stock up on ammunition and vegetable seeds for the post-apocalyptic world we are about to enter into. (Speaking of which, have you tuned in to radio and television personality Glenn Beck lately and heard some of the callers?)

The truth is somewhere in between those poles. And to a large degree, it depends upon which vertical you’re in and which markets you serve.

Regardless, it is never a bad idea to take advantage of lean times to fine tune your operations and business processes, assess your supply chain systems, and plan for the future – in this case, some level of financial recovery – by optimizing your supply chain and the information technology required to support it.

Many companies are in a budgetary "freeze" and have either set their 2010 budgets at 2009 actual spend levels or cut them back to some degree.

I saw a few projects delayed and/or scaled back last year, which unfortunately, puts those organizations at a competitive disadvantage – either because their competition is continuing to move forward with their improvement initiatives, or those companies are failing to gain momentum for an economic comeback, which is certain to happen.

So with all of that said, how are you freeing up capital to invest in operations consulting and improvement, as well as advancement of your technology capabilities?

Or have you found yourself in a dilemma where you can’t fund an improvement project, because your operation is performing sub-optimally, and/or you can’t perform optimally until you improve your supply chain operation?

In future posts, we’ll discuss how to free up capital. In the meantime, let me know what you are doing to get out of this catch-22.

-- David Meyers

After working as a supply chain IT professional for many years, sometimes people start considering you an expert in certain areas. So, as it happens, whenever an RFID consulting opportunity comes our way at Tompkins Associates, heads usually turn in my direction.

As the resident RFID "expert," I recently spoke with Maida Napolitano at Logistics Management Magazine. She was working on the article, which ran in their February issue, Warehouse and Distribution Centers: RFID Revisited.

Her article focuses on the ROI of RFID, and she notes four key benefits that RFID-enabled warehouses and DCs can achieve within the first 12 months of deployment. They are:

Eliminate shipping and receiving errors,

Improve productivity,

Establish traceability, and

Achieve inventory control and accuracy.

RFID is not going away any time soon. So, if you want to get some ideas about the advantages of RFID and learn more about what Wal-mart is doing with their RFID initiatives, check out this article, or post comments and questions right here on our blog. I would like to hear your thoughts.

--Paul

In my line of work, I often talk with software vendors and users. Usually, I end up learning something new, and this week was no exception.

The other day at the Tompkins’ Emergency Technology Center (ETC), I was talking to Dick Lipari from Royal 4 Systems, and we were discussing the relevance of Royal 4 Systems’ WMS flow lot control functionality to the food industry. The awe-factor of this functionality is complete traceability – high supply chain visibility – from first touch to end delivery.

During our discussion, Dick made the comment that 20 bills concerning the integrity of the food supply chain are currently before Congress. I must admit I don’t subscribe to Congressional Quarterly, but I believe Dick, because last year’s Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks are still fresh in my mind.

At the same time, I’m remembering how many of us were on edge a few years ago waiting for California’s serialized ePedigree requirements to hit pharmaceutical distributors like a ton of bricks. But the initial buzz has fizzled as California relented and pushed back its deadline partially due to the compliance costs that state agencies and facilities would have to bear.

However, with food products, it’s different. Food contamination stories make great press. Given our 24/7 multi-source news coverage culture, every outbreak results in a call for government action. There may be a backlash against big government, but when the safety of the products in our pantries and refrigerators are in question, we demand that the government take action.

And our demand for government to act isn’t limited to the food chain. I was reminded of that fact when I received a DC Velocity e-advertisement from the Homeland Security Administration admonishing distribution operations not to let their chemicals be "their next weapon." DC Velocity also recently ran an article on this topic.

So as we move toward the future, government regulations concerning control and visibility within supply chains are only going to increase, and distribution network operations will have to comply with these regulations. Many of these operations have systems inadequate to the task, and these requirements will hit them like a ton of bricks.

It’s time to start preparing for the future of your supply chain. So what are you doing in the meantime besides checking the lot numbers of the peanut butter and salsa in your kitchen? How important is visibility to you, even without government intervention? Don’t you want to know where your food has been?

-- Tom

Other Resources:

Tompkins’ Emerging Technology Center (ETC) focuses on integration and testing, technology evaluation, employee training, and emerging product demonstrations. At the ETC, companies have the opportunity to evaluate fully-operational material handling and system technology solutions without risk or financial investment.

For more information, visit:   http://www.tompkinsinc.com/integration/EmergingTechCtr.asp

 

Photo credit: Masahiro Ihara

When thinking about creating a collaborative supply chain, imagine that you are a conductor for an orchestra and are raising your arms, preparing the group to begin.

But when they group begins to play, you can’t make sense of the tune because each member of the orchestra is playing from a different sheet of music.

In this scenario, we learn that you have to do more than pull a group together and signal them to begin. You need to be prepared and make sure everyone is on the same page.

This is also true when in the process of a supply chain collaborative system selection or when implementing a collaborative supply chain: Having accurate information that can be viewed by all parties is ideal for good collaboration.

And for many organizations, an IT system may be exactly what they need to achieve a collaborative supply chain.

However, as with any IT systems-supported initiative that involves multiple viewpoints, there are risks that should be realistically formulated before casting the visibility and collaboration net wide for all to take part.

Before we take a look at the risks, let’s run through some core elements of the collaborative supply chain:

• Forecasts – Sales forecasts at the stocking unit and stocking location are valuable information for suppliers providing materials or finished goods. Visibility into the sales forecast is a great place to start. Ultimately, and depending on your own forecasting capabilities, involvement with suppliers in collaborative forecast updates is sure to yield future improvements in forecast accuracy.
• Sales History – This information is similar to forecasts in its value to suppliers. Sales history provides a basis for understanding how forecasts are developed and insight into past activity, which can further secure the supplier’s commitment to your forecast. Sources for sales history may be detailed point-of-sale data or may be a refined version that supports the forecasting process.
• Inventory on Hand – Visibility into inventory on hand provides yet another validation point for suppliers in understanding where their inventory lies within your supply chain. Understanding and managing inventory over time gives additional insight into typical product movement, which may not be evident in the sales forecast or sales history.
• Replenishment Needs – Communicating the replenishment needs to suppliers is central to any supply chain operation, and the need to collaborate in this area is ages old. Typically the transmission of the PO and the acknowledgement from the supplier are the key elements. Email, fax and paper-based operations are the lowest common denominator for many organizations, and moving toward electronic systems is often met with resistance. The more advanced offering that supports collaborative replenishment involves real-time communication of replenishment needs based on the supplier’s order quantity capabilities, followed by a timely acknowledgement that includes any adjustments and later provides an advanced ship notification which represents the shipment(s) that will arrive at your doorstep.

One important factor in acceptance of the meaningful collaborative supply chain is that the relevant, available information is accessible to the appropriate parties involved.

As an example, sending a supplier your sales forecast to a production scheduler via email is a positive step toward collaboration.

However, making that forecast available on a single platform that can be viewed by the supplier’s finance group, sales group, distribution center operations, and transportation providers ensures that they’re all referencing the same version and are planning or operating based on more than delayed or distilled information.

This type of open visibility and collaboration with the right channels is a tricky balance, but the downside of delayed point-to-point communications and related inaccuracies makes the more thoughtful balance worthwhile.

When opening up visibility to your suppliers and leveraging trading partners’ capabilities, there are also risks. These key risk factors include:

• Security of Information – Opening up to suppliers and logistics partners relies on IT systems that provide for data security. In addition, agreements to recognize the data as proprietary for parties involved in the collaborative process should be evaluated.
• Stability and Data Availability – Once the supply chain evolves into the collaborative model, reverting back to manual methods in the event of system downtime could be a considerable disruption. Ensuring system uptime and redundancy of processes is a must.
• Single Version of the Truth – Consolidating all of the elements of the collaborative relationship in a synchronized manner ensures suppliers and logistics partners are reading from the same sheet of music. The flip side of this in terms of multiple point-to-point communications can lead to chaos.

We’re interested in knowing your thoughts on these risks and benefits, as well as what you might be doing to further the collaborative supply chain. Looking forward to your input and comments.

- Matt

Photo credit: Monica Liu

By Kevin Hume 

Recently, I had the opportunity to interview a wide range of supply chain professionals engaged in the design, deployment and end use of Supply Chain Execution software (WMS/TMS/LMS).

I spoke with "in the trenches" practitioners who manage day-to-day operational challenges and execute the strategic mandates passed down from executive leadership.

I also spoke with industry analysts, third-party integrators and supply chain software executives. All this was done in an effort to compile a broad perspective of opinions relating to the emerging trends in Supply Chain Execution (SCE) software. My mission was to identify key emerging trends in the SCE software market over the next 3-5 years.

Considering the broad range of feature-function requirements in the SCE market, I received opinions across multiple perspectives (supplier, integrator and end user) and insight within different industries.

Despite the diverse group and backgrounds, a few issues consistently floated to the top of the list, irrespective of perspective or industry.

The most prevalent themes across all the discussions included:

Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings – This was easily the most common refrain from discussions with SCE software end users.

SCE practitioners’ view SaaS offerings as an emerging opportunity to provide the quickest speed to market at the lowest possible price point. Practitioners are clamoring to meet executives demand for cost effective solutions that can be quickly deployed with minimal investment in software applications and supporting hardware stacks.

Considering that a typical Best of Breed (BoB) WMS deployment runs 4-6 months at best from contract signing to go-live, there is an expectation that SaaS offerings will steadily grow feature-function capabilities and become catalysts to meet practitioners’ demands for quicker deployment timelines, flexible hosting options and lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).

From the SCE supplier side, a number of emerging SaaS applications have brought some innovative products into the market. As the next few years unfold, expect to see an increasingly robust SaaS feature-function set coming into the market.

Look for more details on the existing and emerging state of SaaS feature-functions in our upcoming blog posts.

Planning & Execution Integration – The rapid changes in the global economic climate over the last 18 months have highlighted the need for end-to-end visibility and the need for adaptability within the supply chain planning and execution processes.

The ability to provide planning capabilities that reach from the point of supply to the point of distribution have been a primary driver in the growing acceptance of SCM-ERP suites over the past few years.

The BoB players have also recognized this need and have been working hard through the integration of acquired products and core feature-function improvements matching the visibility and functionality of the SCM-ERP offerings.

It’s taken the BoB suppliers significant investment-development effort over the last several years to reach this point.

In the next few years, it should be revealed if the investment in end-to-end integration will pay off and which market’s organizational complexities will generate traction within the BoB view of Planning and Execution integration.

Look for further discussions related to the SCM-ERP versus the BoB model in upcoming blog posts. In fact, if you have a particular idea or question related to this topic, drop me a note and let’s discuss it.

Model Driven Functionality – Similar to SaaS offerings, Model Driven Functionality meets the dual requirements of "speed to market" at the lowest possible TCO.

The ability for SCE software to quickly adapt to emerging fulfillment demands within a zero modification environment continues to be a key desire for both current and future customers, as well as a critical path to capture increased market share for both BoB and ERP suppliers alike.

The Model Driven Configuration capabilities of the leading BoB and SCM-ERP offerings vary widely by supplier today.

The offerings that successfully ‘close the gap’ between robust functional configuration options within an intuitive, graphical tool set will become the industry leaders in the near future.

Now, take a step back and look at the three topics we just discussed – what are some of the external factors that really enhance the value of these emerging trends? My own thought process works something like this:

a) Current-emerging economic climate is driving a need for

b) robust, quick-to-market business requirement support; and

c) the limited access to capitol dictates lowest possible investment and TCO needed to support supply chain execution.

In a nutshell, I think these external factors are driving SaaS offerings, Planning-Execution Integration and Model Driven Capability to the top of the 3-5 year wish list.

Are these the topics that resonate with you and within your industry? Drop me a line! What do you think the emerging trends will be over the next 3-5 years within the supply chain execution market?

Kevin Hume

On my way into the office this morning, I stopped at my local convenience store for a cup of coffee. During the past year, I stopped going to the "premium" coffee shops as a way to save money. Charging more than $2 for coffee should be a crime anyway. And I’m not talking about buying the sissy coffee type either; I’m talking just plain old coffee – black.

I’ve heard people say, "You could save a lot more money by making it yourself at home." It’s probably true, but that is beside the point. Buying it at the store is convenient (hence the term convenience store) and fast, and they actually have pretty darn good coffee.

Anyway, I know how much a 16 oz. cup costs at this place since I buy it there almost every day. So, this morning I grabbed the exact amount – 65 cents – from my change jar on the way out the door. I made the pit stop, went in and poured the coffee, and while I was standing in line, I reached into my pocket – two quarters, one nickel, and no dime – no dime in any pocket. So I put the change back in my pocket and pulled out a buck.

On the drive in, as I sipped my coffee, I thought that my premium coffee "boycott" and needing 10 cents more was very analogous to what has happened in most businesses and distribution operations over the past year or so.

Organizations have been forced to look at their budgets, cut out the premium stuff (as I did with my coffee), reduce waste, and trim costs wherever they can. And even now, they are still trying to find that last "10 cents."

So, how does that relate to Supply Chain Information Technology?

When supply chain systems are not configured or technologies are not used to their full potential, supply chain costs may remain inflated and service levels can be more difficult and costly to achieve.

You need to do an analysis of your organization's supply chain technologies to uncover cost reduction opportunities – both in terms of the overall supply chain performance as well as in technologies’ administrative costs.

Here are some questions you can ask of your own organization:

- How can existing systems’ functionality be better used to streamline operations?

- What performance metrics and tools best support the overall corporate objectives at the appropriate management levels for them to make better decisions?

- Are there practical opportunities to improve trading partner integration for timeliness and accuracy, thereby decreasing costs?

- Do the technologies effectively support corporate objectives for inventory levels?

- Are there opportunities to reduce technology administrative costs and overhead costs?

Today's business environment demands that companies optimize their technology investments and examine every opportunity to improve operating expenses while sustaining customer service.

You need to dig to find the hidden costs often buried in current systems’ configuration and processes.

Where is your dime coming from?

David Meyers

The ends of decades aren’t quite as good for reflection as millennium milestones.

But they’ll do in a pinch.

Remember the Y2K craze? Computer systems across the planet were going to crash and burn one second past midnight on December 31, 1999, plunging the world into chaos. Power grids would go black. Airplanes would drop out of the sky. Companies would fail as their core IT infrastructure became worthless piles of junk.

Well, it didn’t quite turn out this way.

Y2K made great press. It also gave software vendors a boost in making new sales. But as a disaster, it pretty much turned out to be a major bust.

One could attribute this to the foresight and diligence of countless IT departments and professionals who addressed a known problem in a measured manner with plenty of time to spare. But the normal replacement and upgrade of obsolete systems had something to do with it too.

Y2K’s roots were in an older generation of software and data structures. As the old gave way to the new, the magnitude of the problem diminished.

This doesn’t mean that some folks weren’t working right up to the stroke of midnight on vintage 1970s code. However, Y2K is still a great example of how flexible and adaptable the IT world is at addressing the known.

It’s the unknown that really tests the mettle of businesses and IT.

Roll back the clock to January 1, 2000. Who foresaw what the first decade of the 21st century would bring? We now worry about airplanes dropping out of the sky and companies failing for reasons that weren’t apparent in anyone’s crystal ball back then.

So as I wait to shout Happy New Year, I can’t help but wonder what’s next.

The prospect of the unknown doesn’t mean we are all flying blind. As anyone involved in demand forecasting can attest, the past and present can help predict the future.

We tend to view progress as a linear function, with some justification. What’s next in the supply chain information technology integration world can be discerned from the events of the past decade.

Despite the past worldwide recession, globalization is here to stay. The world will continue to get flatter and smaller from a supply chain perspective. Visibility, global trade management, and trading partner integration will play an increasingly important roll in successful supply chains.

Moore’s law as applied to the computing industry as a whole is still very much alive and well. The Internet, service-oriented architecture, mobile computing, voice recognition, and RFID all have made their mark on supply chain systems in the past decade.

But you ain’t seen nothing yet. The recession of 2008-2009 put quite a crimp in supply chain IT investments.

As the world recovers from the recession, IT as a strategic weapon that drives efficiencies in supply chains will be very much back in vogue.

I realize that I am being a bit light on details. But I don’t think I’ll find too many people disagreeing with these rather vague predictions. Given another 10 years, I’m not sure that any of us will be that shocked on how these trends play out.

But what about other developments? Sustainability for businesses, carbon footprint, and energy costs will matter to supply chains in the coming decade. How will supply chain systems respond?

Recent events drive home the importance of security in our highly interconnected world. What impact will this have on supply chain IT?

What else is lurking out there?

So as we count down the minutes to the New Year, let’s collectively wonder what’s next and party like IT’s 2009.

Happy New Year!

Tom Singer

Photo credit: hyperscholar