Calendar
<<  September 2010  >>
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930123
45678910
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




Photo Credit: Arturo Avila
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: 
  • Cost Reduction (TMS – think route-mode optimization)
  • Customer Service (TMS – think more competitive delivery options)
  • Productivity (TMS – think process automation, collaboration options)
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
As I was scrolling around the landscape of supply chain blogs and comment boards recently, I came across a question that really struck me as a sign of the times, especially for those of us who are caught up in the ultra fast moving world of information technology and supply chain software

The question – What are the leading transportation management software applications available on the market today? – while quite straightforward, left me somewhat confused. 

How can this question be answered without more context – international/domestic, modes, host environments, lanes, stops, etc.? You get the picture. Yet, there was no shortage of definitive answers (more than 35 and growing as I write this) to this “swing for fences” type of question.

Considering the growing interest in Transportation Management System (TMS) solutions over the last few years (as I mentioned in a previous blog post), it’s not surprising to see these kinds of questions and wide-ranging responses. 

The best way (or if you ask me, the only way) to answer this question and identify your best options for the right TMS solution is to approach the question from a broad to narrow perspective in the following stages:

1. Assessment – Consider your products, markets, suppliers and customers. What are the freight flows, supporting systems and enabling technologies? How is transportation effectiveness measured today?

2. Supply Chain Strategy & Organization – What are the most effective ways to organize transportation inbound/transfers/outbound? How are transportation decisions made (i.e., centralized, decentralized)?

3. Requirements Definition – How is transportation planned to support your strategy? How will the transportation requirements be impacted by future business changes and external factors, such as global supply disruptions or fuel price increases? Where will the relevant data reside, and what level of timeliness will be required?

4. Business Case Development – Where are the gaps in the current strategy? What is the magnitude of the opportunity to close the gaps? How much investment will be required, and what will it take to maintain the new system?

5. Evaluation & Selection – Who are the most qualified TMS providers to meet your requirements? What are the critical functional requirements and key evaluation criteria?

6. Configuration and Integration – What will it take to implement this new system? What are the critical risks and who will manage them (or how will they be managed) throughout the implementation? What are the critical responsibilities of my organization, the software vendor, and my trading partners?

Add them all up and you’re looking at six stages of planning, each one digging down into another level of detail. And notice where the evaluation and selection of a TMS partner shows up in the sequence. 

Whether you’re a TMS rookie, researching TMS for the first time, or a seasoned TMS veteran, considering an upgrade to existing application versus a competitive selection, the process is the same. It all starts with a clear understanding of the specific modules in play for your particular transportation environment. 

Developing and implementing a comprehensive TMS strategy is not a “swing for fences” endeavor but rather a systematic, comprehensive look at the business requirements, systems support, and operational processes within the supply chain. 

Take this one, one base at a time.

-- Kevin
Photo Credit: DeusXFlorida
As I’ve seen on many recent projects, transportation management systems (TMS) are quickly becoming one of the most sought after supply chain IT systems. It’s also been shown that over the past two lean years, the TMS market has fared better than the WMS market. 

And due to consumer demand, they are coming into their own like a souped up Mr. Potato Head, adding and re-positioning any necessary parts. 

From a business strategy perspective, the perennial factors driving the strong demand for TMS applications are the ability to: (1) reduce transportation spend today and (2) provide more nimble transportation processes as supply chain challenges emerge – whether they manifest themselves in rising fuel costs, resource utilization constraints, global/regional disruptions, and on and on. 

From a technology perspective, there are a number of other factors contributing to the TMS market growth:

Functionality -TMS applications have become robust, offering additional modules that were only supported by niche players several years ago. For example, software for Global Trade Management and Financial Settlement were application markets several years ago, but can now be found in the more robust TMS offerings.

Deployment & Configuration Options – TMS providers have embraced software as a service (SaaS) deployment and service-oriented architecture (SOA) platforms, enabling much more cost-effective and functionally adaptable solutions than predecessor applications.

Upgrade Opportunities – Existing TMS customers faced with functional trade-offs or custom modifications and the resulting costly upgrades now have new options to consider. Many customers are turning traditional upgrade efforts into a competitive bid situation and evaluate the changes in the TMS market.  

Taking these factors for market growth into account, (if you have one) where does your TMS stand? Is it lacking a necessary module, like Mr. Potato Head with a missing nose? 

If you don’t have a TMS, now may be a good time to begin your research. In my next blog post, I’ll talk more about evaluating your TMS strategy. 

You can check back or subscribe to our blog to receive new posts in your inbox or by RSS. In the meantime, let me know if you have any WMS or TMS questions.

-- Kevin
 
 
 
 
Photo Credit: Wyscan 

Newton wasn’t thinking about the supply chain when he came up with his third law of motion, but it can certainly be applied to many common supply chain activities. 

For instance, I’ve recently seen several clients struggle to keep up with the increasing pace of smaller receipts and the resulting increase in labor and delays at the dock. While, at the same time, the purchasing groups in these organizations are lauded as heroes for increasing inventory turns and making more effective of use of the inventory dollars.

Do the associated inventory savings justify the inefficiencies imparted on the warehouse operations?

This is a classic supply chain scenario that requires a balanced looked at the overall operation to make sure that one aspect of the supply chain does not become optimized at the expense of another supply chain process up or down stream. And I suspect this same battle is going on in countless organizations across the country right now.

When you think about the big picture here, there are huge implications for both operational savings (think layout improvements and labor efficiencies) and improved inventory utilization (think reduced stock-outs at lower overall inventory levels). Where do you begin in order to analyze this situation?

I have some insights based on several client experiences, but I’d like to get some input from those of you who might be experiencing a similar situation in the current economic climate.

What practices have you set in motion to balance your supply chain? What practices should be set in motion?

-- Kevin

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