new the chief supply chain officer report 2012 · 2013. 1. 10. · world has published its annual...

1THE CHIEF SUPPLY CHAIN OFFICER REPORT 2012

THE CHIEF SUPPLY CHAIN OFFICER REPORT2012

A research study by:

Dr Hau Lee, Chairman, SCM World, and Thoma Professor of Operations, Information and Technology, Stanford Graduate School of Business

Kevin O’Marah, Head of Faculty, SCM World

Geraint John, Senior Vice President, Research, SCM World

THE CHIEF SUPPLY CHAIN OFFICER REPORT2012

Approaching 2013, we see a number of important trends in supply chain management. The collective insights from 1,400 leaders who participated in this SCM World research demonstrate that we live in a world where change is constant, and where groundbreaking approaches must be embraced to effectively compete and win in today’s volatile global economy.

The report’s findings are a loud call to action for everyone in our discipline. Individually and collectively, we must establish tight strategic alignment between our supply chains and businesses. We must harness digital commerce systems to serve new market niches and maximise profitable growth by delivering unprecedented operational flexibility. We must define and execute world-class social and environmental responsibility practices. We must construct more robust risk management systems to persevere through supply disruptions and adverse market conditions. And finally, we must fully embrace the idea that world-class talent is a powerful engine of business innovation and competitive advantage.

This is a complex and interconnected set of challenges. Each one requires its own focused transformation plan. However, broad operating principles can guide us in harmonising these plans and meeting the demands of today’s chaotic world. At Lenovo, there are two in particular on which we rely very heavily – driving speed of execution and customer focus.

Increasing speed demands a sustained focus on continuous improvement, a strong risk management process and the talent to make good decisions quickly. These capabilities enable the flexibility and agility needed to quickly adjust product mixes and routes to market in response to all types of business conditions, including periods of supply disruption, while serving the “tail” of demand.

Being a customer-centric supply chain means having clear metrics tightly aligned with real experience. Collaboration skills also are critical, as supply chain professionals must execute across marketing, product development and sales, as well as external suppliers, to deliver a truly world-class customer experience.

Finally, our organizations cannot address the challenges of the day without great talent. This is a personal passion of mine because, as former US Secretary of State Colin Powell once said, “no battle plan survives contact with the enemy”. You need people with the skill, knowledge and intuition to improvise in responding to unpredictable scenarios with groundbreaking business innovation. That is why talent development is a core pillar of Lenovo’s supply chain strategy and why we make significant investments in this area.

This Chief Supply Chain Officer Report advances a common view of our path forward to supply chain excellence and strategic relevance in our industries. And many of the best practices to advance our discipline will come from knowledge sharing and collaboration within our professional community. Lenovo is proud to be a part of this process, and we look forward to tackling our opportunities and challenges strengthened by this spirit of partnership.

Gerry P. SmithSenior Vice PresidentGlobal Supply Chain & Global ServicesLenovo Group

FOREWORD

This document is the result of primary research performed by RaptureWorld Ltd. RaptureWorld’s methodologies provide for objective, fact-based research and represent the best analysis available at the time of publication. Unless otherwise noted, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by RaptureWorld Ltd and may not be reproduced, distributed, archived or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent by RaptureWorld Ltd (6443794).

© 2012 SCM World, a RaptureWorld Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

STRATEGY ALIGNMENT AND VALUE CREATION

DIGITAL CONSUMERS AND eCOMMERCE

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

RISK MANAGEMENT

TALENT MANAGEMENT

CONCLUSIONS

ABOUT THE RESEARCH

4

6

13

14

20

29

36

41

49

50

6 THE CHIEF SUPPLY CHAIN OFFICER REPORT 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STRATEGY ALIGNMENT AND VALUE CREATION • Operating cost reduction is still the

foundation of supply chain excellence, with almost two-thirds of survey respondents saying it is “very important”. But increasingly, companies are using high-performing supply chains as a way to support the company’s business strategy. This enables value creation and provides competitive advantage. Hence, supply chain strategy and business strategy must be aligned.

• The importance of aligning supply chain strategy and business strategy has led to the recognition and appreciation of the supply chain function as an integral part of the company’s business leadership. Over half of the respondents agree that their supply chain is viewed as an integral function for business success. Hence, supply chain and strategy alignment is also linked with organisational alignment within the firm.

• There are many ways in which high-performing supply chains can support value creation and competitive advantage. Leading the way, according to our survey participants, is the ability of high-performing supply chains to enhance customer service, leading to customer loyalty. The driving factors for great value to be gained from enhanced customer service are the ability of customer service to generate repeat purchases and customer service becoming an important criterion in determining the customer’s purchasing decisions.

• The other important ways in which high-performing supply chains can support value creation and competitive advantage provision include stronger supplier relationships, acceleration of new product introduction, and business expansion in existing and new markets. More than two-thirds of respondents say these deliver high or very high value in their companies.

This is the third consecutive year that SCM World has published its annual Chief Supply Chain Officer Report. In July 2012 almost 1,400 practitioners from a wide range of industries and geographies – more than twice as many as in 2011 – completed a 40-question survey covering five main topics:

1. Strategy alignment and value creation2. Digital consumers and eCommerce3. Social and environmental responsibility4. Risk management5. Talent management

The key findings contained in this report can be summarised as follows:


• This year’s results are a reconfirmation of last year’s. And the trend is continuing for companies to use supply chain excellence as a means for creating value and competitive advantage. Companies where supply chain management is still viewed as a supporting function, or where supply chain management is only viewed as a way to reduce operating costs, have a lot of catching up to do, as they are missing great opportunities.


• Digital demand and eCommerce appear to be driving complexity from the consumer upstream into the supply chain in every way possible, including packaging, pricing, SKU counts, distribution networks and even manufacturing strategies. The sensitivity to this pressure is much higher closest to consumers (retail, distribution, consumer products) suggesting that tier suppliers upstream may lack the agility needed to meet fast-changing demand patterns.

• The influence of eCommerce and digital/mobile consumers is expected to increase complexity of demand at the point of fulfilment. By a ratio of 4:1 respondents expect consumers to be increasingly receptive to offers trading price, convenience and selection against each other rather than merely seeking the lowest possible price. This effect is also most pronounced closest to the consumer (in retail) and less powerful further upstream in the supply chain.

• Digital demand and eCommerce are also expected to increase SKU counts as opportunities to serve the “long tail” of demand are exploited. Again, the effect is significantly greater among respondents closest to the consumer.

• Three-quarters of all respondents expect changes to their distribution networks to be driven by digital demand. Opinions split evenly between those who see a case for

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Future effect of eCommerce and mobile-enabled customer on SKU assortments

1325

36

26

% of respondents n=1,337

Drive much larger SKU assortments as brands pursue ever smaller niches of demand

Drive some SKU expansion as brands pursue some smaller niches of demand

Have little or no effect on SKU assortments

Drive smaller SKU assortments as brands simplify to cut costs in response to price pressure

Value created by a high-performing supply chain

No value whatsoever

Little value

Moderate value

High value

Very high value

n=1,379Note: Figures may not add up to 100 because of rounding

Do your CEO and executive management team appreciate the alignment of business strategy and supply chain strategy?

5931

8 2Absolutely. Supply chain is understood as an equally important part of business success as sales & marketing or R&D/product development

Yes, but only as an enabler of product or sales-driven business strategies

Not really. Supply chain is understood primarily as a cost center that affects margins

No. Supply chain is strictly seen as a function meant to service the business

% of respondentsn=1,373

15 40 413Enhanced customer service and customer loyalty

Stronger supplier relationships

Accelerated new product introduction

Expansion of business to new market segments in existing/new regions

Expanded offerings of value-added services

Facilitation of premium pricing

Leverage opportunities created by external supply disruptions

19 46 3141

20 43 3151

22 40 2982

30 41 2081

31 38 19102

30 30 18176

% of respondents


smaller, more local distribution centres and those who expect larger, centralised, more flexible multi-mode distribution centres. It appears likely that some hybrid of the two may become common.

• Three-quarters of all respondents also expect changes in their manufacturing strategies. Respondents in the hi-tech sector are the most certain that manufacturing strategies will change (only 16% see “little or no effect”), while chemicals reject this idea (54% see “little or no effect”).

• A majority (56%) expect brands to develop their own direct-to-customer fulfilment systems, while a quarter anticipates reliance on eCommerce specialists such as Amazon. One-fifth sees little reason to change.

• Social media is playing little role today in supply chain strategies (47% see “no effect”), but in the future many see opportunities to get customer feedback (56%), inform product innovation (46%) or warn of supply disruptions (41%).

• Seeking demand insight in emerging data sets elicits some concern about privacy. Most

respondents shy away from mining sources such as search histories or social networking activity. Rich demand data may exist, but using it to design a supply response seems inappropriate to many.

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

• Positive customer image and brand equity remains the key driver for social and environmental responsibility (SER) initiatives, with 71% of survey respondents saying this is a board-level motivation. Companies can use SER to strengthen their customer relationships and enhance their value propositions.

• SER efforts start with visibility of SER performance inside the company as well as the extended supply network. While progress has been made, companies are still far from having good visibility of their suppliers and the extended supply network – only a quarter say they currently have this.

• Companies have stepped up their action in response to SER violations by suppliers. A third do not give suppliers warnings before

Social media is playing little role

today in supply chain strategies, but in the future will be a source

of customer feedback,

inform product innovation and warn of supply

disruptions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The board’s motivations for investing in SER


Create a positive customer image and enhance

brand equity

Satisfy government regulations

Reduce costs and/or increase efficiency (e.g., through better use of energy, raw materials)

Ensure no disruption of supply

Fend off shareholder or external PR concerns

Increase sales revenue

7175

4942

4332

37

30

28

22

1731

2012

2011

Views on the use of customer data

Weighted average rating, 1-5 scalen=1,346

Customer transaction data should be mined to

understand buying behaviour

Customer webstore data (cookies, eCommerce

history) should be mined to understand buying behaviour

Customer geospatial data (mobile GPS) should be

mined to understand buying behaviour

Customer private web data (Google search, Facebook,

etc) should be mined to understand buying behaviour

4.083.75

3.553.27

3.202.98

2.892.69

Disagree Agree Neutral

At an aggregate level

At an individual level


both about price pressure or customers appearing not to care, and a lack of resources for SER efforts.

• Despite the challenges, most companies are still pushing forward with their investments in SER efforts. Such investments are multi-dimensional, involving internal operations, product design, supply network and customers. The trend towards increased SER initiatives seems to be unstoppable.

RISK MANAGEMENT

• The impact of last year’s natural disasters in Japan and Thailand is strongly in evidence, with shortages of raw materials and components heading the list of risks that survey respondents are most concerned about. The hi-tech sector, in particular, is very concerned about this, as are almost half of those based in the Asia-Pacific region – twice the level of European respondents.

• More than two-thirds of supply chain executives are also concerned about shipping disruptions, incidents at supplier facilities and the failure of key suppliers when they consider the potential of supply-

reacting and taking often punitive actions. And these punitive actions have shifted to a more severe kind – immediate termination of the business relationship is now more common than it was a year ago.

• Positive incentives are still necessary to improve SER performance in the long run. Punitive actions will hopefully induce more compliance, but getting commitment requires a collaborative effort, with the company willing to invest and work with suppliers for real improvements. Preferred supplier status and increased business are the two most popular incentives, as they were in 2011.

• The SER journey for many companies is maturing, and companies are beginning to realise more significant benefits from their SER efforts than in previous years. More than half of survey respondents report good or substantial results in complying with government regulations and laws, and in improving both supplier relationships and customer satisfaction.

• Measuring benefits continues to be a challenge for almost 6 out of 10 respondents, however. And more than half are concerned

Companies are beginning to realise more significant benefits from their SER efforts than they did in previous years.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Penalties for breach of SER standards


Warning first, followed by

No warning, immediate action

taken in the form of

Monetary fines

Reduced business

Termination of business relationship

14

58

42

13

53

47

Impact of supply- and demand-side disruptions in the past two years

Loss of sales/revenue

Lower profits

Delays to new projects/product introduction/growth plans

Loss of customers

Damage to image, reputation or brand

Lower share price

Failure to meet legal or regulatory requirements

Higher cost of capital

None 16

13

14

34

19

27

41

19

44

62

35

45

Supply-side disruption

Demand-side disruption

15

8

19

16

14

33

28

39

47


2012

2011


and demand-side disruptions to negatively impact their businesses during the next 12 months. And more than a quarter are very concerned about regulatory issues and counterfeit products.

• Better and more frequent communication with suppliers is the most popular method of identifying potential risks – a trend that accelerated during the 2008 financial crisis and is now an integral part of many companies’ supplier relationship management programmes. This is followed by more formal and structured risk tools such as supply chain risk mapping, business impact analysis and scenario planning.

• Dual or multi-sourcing of key materials, components and products is the most widely used approach to mitigating risk, with more than three-quarters of respondents (and 94% in the chemicals sector) doing this on the supply side. Audits of key suppliers and holding safety stocks are also common, with two-thirds of companies using these tactics as part of their risk management efforts.

• More than 8 out of 10 companies have been hit by supply- and demand-side disruptions

during the past two years. Almost half have suffered a loss of sales/revenue and more than a third have seen lower profits from both upstream and downstream events in their value chains. A third have also lost customers and 44% have suffered delays to product introductions, new projects or growth plans as a result of supply risks becoming live issues.

TALENT MANAGEMENT

• Supply chain talent management has become even more problematic in the past year, with companies experiencing increasing levels of difficulty in finding, hiring and retaining skilled people. Some improvement can be seen in the area of providing “a compelling career progression”, which saw a drop in the share of respondents who feel this is extremely challenging. It may be the case that even mild economic growth has tightened talent markets, while leadership has worked to improve opportunities for those willing to commit.

• In addition to tighter competition for talent, it seems the pain of lost talent has also worsened. More respondents say the

A move back toward high-

wage countries may make sense for organisations

working to balance their

talent portfolios.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Impact when talented staff are lostChallenges in respect of knowledge workers

Wei

ghte

d av

erag

e ra

ting*

Finding talent

Relocating talent

Career progression

Developing talent

Measuring talent

Hiring talent

Retaining talent

EMEA APAC Americas n=1,302

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

*1-5 scale, where above 3.00 = challenging


Lost production Lost process IP Cost of transitionLost product IP

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50


Wei

ghte

d av

erag

e ra

ting*


problems arise from disruption and the cost of transition than from lost know-how – a reversal from 2011.

• Geographic cuts of this data show that the problems are most severe in Asia, where retention is a prominent issue and penalties for lost talent hurt most.

• China is clearly no longer a “low-cost country” in the traditional sense. Knowledge workers in China are generally not seen as lacking in technical or business skills, but do pose problems in terms of rising costs and poor retention. The implications for talent management in a global supply chain strategy include a need to diversify away from Asia, and China in particular, as tighter labour markets increase the risk of damaging departures among key staff.

• Comparing opinions of overall “value for money” and “biggest risk” talent markets suggests a move back toward high-wage countries may make sense for organisations working to balance their talent portfolio.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Best value talent markets

Germany

India

China

UK

Brazil

Eastern Europe

Japan

Singapore

Taiwan

Mexico

Netherlands

France

South Korea

2.61

2.13

2.12

2.11

2.01

1.89

1.82

1.77

1.60

1.59

1.58

1.55

Weighted average rating (1-5, where 5=highest value) n=1,172

US

1.41

1.38

Biggest risk talent markets

Germany

India

China

UK

Brazil

Eastern Europe

Japan

Singapore

Taiwan

Mexico

Netherlands

France

South Korea

2.98

2.11

2.05

2.03

1.98

1.74

1.72

1.72

1.69

1.66

1.59


US

1.58

1.22

1.60



INTRODUCTION

Images of Apple CEO Tim Cook unveiling the company’s latest iPhone stand as a milestone for many in the world of supply chain. Having built his career in materials management and fulfilment, Cook’s ascendance to the leadership of the world’s most valuable company speaks volumes about the potential for supply chain to impact business.

Despite this symbolic achievement, the supply chain management discipline is still in its early years. Wikipedia credits the coining of the term to a Booz Allen Hamilton consultant named Keith Oliver as quoted in a Financial Times article in 1982. Thirty years has seen some progress toward general acceptance of what supply chain means and how it relates to business, but few would argue the journey is anywhere near its end.

Since 1982 so much has changed in the shape of the global economy that the principles underpinning what we mean by “supply chain” have had little opportunity to stabilise. Today’s chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) are wrestling with new types of consumer demand, wider accountability for impacts on the environment and society, and heightened exposure to risks, both natural and man-made. At one level, the challenge includes finding and co-ordinating skilled people to handle the ongoing quest for better performance; at another, assuring that supply chain strategies are aligned with business strategies. The survey on which this report is based polled the worldwide professional community to get a picture of how these forces are affecting our work now and in the future.

As well as crystallising a view of the top issues facing senior supply chain leaders as they begin to plan for 2013, the purpose of this research effort was to assemble a data set large enough to allow almost any question about the state of supply chain in 2012 to be answered with at least some factual basis. Our respondent base consists of almost 1,400 practitioners answering over 40 questions each. This means detailed cuts by industry, location, job function and job level, as well as by opinion, are possible. Our hope is that individual SCM World community members, all of whom will have access to aggregate data, can get the facts they need to benchmark their plans against peers and, when necessary, make the case for change within their own organisations.

We would like to thank everyone who took part in this year’s study, E2open for once again sponsoring it, and Gerry Smith at Lenovo for writing the Foreword. Your support has been invaluable and is much appreciated.

Dr Hau LeeChairman, SCM World and Thoma Professor of Operations, Information and Technology,Stanford Graduate School of Business

Kevin O’MarahHead of Faculty, SCM World

Geraint JohnSenior Vice President, Research, SCM World


Last year’s Chief Supply Chain Officer Survey was one of the first attempts to dive deeply into these issues. In 2012 we continue this exploration, in order to more concretely understand how the role of supply chain is evolving, and how value can be created through excellence in supply chain management.

A MIXTURE OF COST REDUCTION AND VALUE ENHANCEMENT

As in 2011, the main way that supply chain improvement is contributing to business strategy is through operating cost reduction. Almost two-thirds of survey respondents say this contribution is “very important”, with another third saying “important” (see Figure 1). Those in the hi-tech sector express this view most strongly, with 7 out of 10 rating it very important. This contrasts with just 44% in the chemicals sector who say the same. This gulf can be explained by the fact that in hi-tech industries new products can be commoditised quickly, due to the shortening of product lifecycles. Fierce competition requires companies to be both innovative in new product introduction on the one hand, and be extremely cost efficient on the other. Hence, operating cost reduction through effective supply chain management is critical. In chemicals, however, product margins are still high and it is the control of source materials that matters the most. Supply chain management is concerned more with reliable supply than with operating cost reduction.

Cost reduction may still be regarded as the fundamental role of supply chain management by practitioners, but a strong supply chain supports a firm’s business strategy in other ways too. Just over half of our sample believes it has a very important role in increasing revenue, with 93% in total seeing this as an important role. Again, respondents from hi-tech firms are most strident on this point.

Just a few percentage points behind is competitive advantage through differentiated customer service, with almost 9 out of 10 identifying this as a means through which supply chain

1: STRATEGY ALIGNMENT AND VALUE CREATION

The design and operation of a company’s supply chain is critical to its business performance. However, it is important that the supply chain strategy is aligned with the corporate strategy of the firm. The orchestration of the supply chain should support the company’s attainment of its strategic goals. Likewise, a company may have to refine these goals in light of the constraints faced by its supply chain. The ideal situation is that the supply chain can be developed in a way that aligns completely with the company’s strategic goals.

This alignment also means that the supply chain is making major contributions towards the attainment of those goals. The role of supply chain management in this process can be viewed as twofold. Traditionally, it is a supportive role – a supply chain enables the goals to be accomplished with the highest efficiency, often defined to be cost and time. The second role, which is increasingly the modern view of supply chain management, is that the supply chain enables the company to set even higher goals or expand its strategic directions.

A value-creation view of supply chain management requires supply chain executives to work closely as an integrated part of the company’s top executive team. The supply chain function is not in the background in driving the company’s strategic performance; rather, it becomes part of the steering team in the executive suite, building value through strategic alignment.

While there has been anecdotal evidence and small sample studies showing that some companies have started to view supply chain management as an integral part of the top management team, and that supply chain has begun to assume more of the value-creating role, how this trend is developing among a wider pool of companies is still not well known. In addition, how exactly does supply chain management create value? In what ways does supply chain management influence key strategic levers that allow value to be created? What are the key factors that could drive such value-creation levers? These issues have not been well understood.


Cost reduction may still be regarded as the fundamental supply chain role, but a strong supply chain supports a company’s business strategy in other ways too.

HOW HIGH-PERFORMING SUPPLY CHAINS DRIVE VALUE

High-performing supply chains can enable companies to create value in multiple ways. Examples include accelerated new product introduction, the facilitation of premium pricing, enhanced customer service and loyalty, expansion to new market segments and stronger supplier relationships. This year’s CSCO survey shows that the majority of supply chain executives believe that high value is delivered for their companies in these and other areas (see Figure 3).

Enhanced customer service leading to customer loyalty is top of the list, with 41% believing it has produced “very high value” and a further 40% saying “high value”. This is a similar finding to 2011. Supply chain excellence improves customer service, strengthens the customer relationship and builds customer intimacy and loyalty, which ultimately leads to increased revenue and the development of competitive advantage. Again, those practitioners working in logistics and distribution firms are the most bullish, with 9 out of 10 convinced that the supply chain function has had a strongly positive impact in this area.

can drive improvements. The logistics sector leads the way here, with 56% saying this is very important. This is followed by 84% who rate competitive advantage through strategic supplier engagement as important (with the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors being the most dominant); while 77% of respondents assign importance to value creation through long-term equity improvement – up from 61% in 2011, with the food and beverage industry a full 20 percentage points above this all-sector average.

Relative to last year, the gap between those who view supply chain improvement as important for operational cost reduction and those who see it as important for creating value in these other forms has reduced. This confirms that, increasingly, supply chain management is not only important for operational excellence, but is also being used by companies to create value.

Supply chain management’s growing role as a value creator can be related to the observation that the supply chain function is also increasingly viewed as an integral part of a company’s strategic management. We asked participants how their CEO and executive team see the position of supply chain. A clear majority (59%) say it is viewed as equally important as other major functions such as R&D, marketing, sales and product development. Among those in logistics firms, more than two-thirds believe this is the case.

This compares with 31% who say supply chain is viewed as an enabler of product or sales-driven business strategies (see Figure 2). Almost half of respondents in the retail sector agree that this is the case. The remaining 10% of the sample overall say that supply chain is viewed primarily as either a cost centre or as a support function to serve the business. So it is gratifying to see that the majority of companies appear to see supply chain as an integral part of business strategy. The rising importance and recognition of the supply chain function is also linked to the earlier observation that supply chain’s role is increasingly about value creation and building competitive advantage, as opposed to purely operational cost reduction.


Figure 1: Supply chain value contribution

How important is it for your company’s business strategy to focus on supply chain improvements for the following?

% of respondents n=1,381Note: Figures may not add up to 100 because of rounding

Operating cost reduction

Value creation through increasing revenue

Competitive advantage through differentiated customer service capabilities

Competitive advantage through strategic supplier engagement

Value creation through long-term equity improvement (e.g., brand equity)

2 33 64

6 42 51

9 41 482

12 42 423

1

1

18 40 374

Not at all important

Somewhat unimportant

Neither

Important

Very important


In second place are stronger supplier relationships. More than three-quarters of survey participants (77%) believe that these have resulted from high performance in the supply chain – a rise of seven points year on year. The hi-tech sector is fully 10 percentage points higher than the all-sector average, with 87% ranking it as a high-value outcome. In that industry, as well as many others, the ability to obtain supply when faced with disruptions or capacity shortages, to collaborate with suppliers in product development, and to integrate better through information sharing and co-ordination can all be sources of competitive advantage and value. When Microsoft entered into the game console market, for example, it relied on Flextronics, Nvidia and Intel heavily to develop the supply chain for its product development effort. More recently, Cisco worked closely with Foxconn on the successful launch of its Viking router product.

It’s a similar picture on accelerated new product introduction, which completes the top three sources of supply chain value in this year’s survey. Supply chain provides the backbone for such time-critical activities, including in the ability to ramp up production quickly, and its role in enabling greater speed here has always been widely accepted. Not surprisingly, perhaps,

given its rapid product churn, hi tech also views supply chain as most critical in faster new product introduction – 83% of practitioners working in this sector believe the function adds high or very high value here.

In the current economic climate, countries such as China, Brazil, India, Turkey and Mexico are experiencing faster growth than the more mature markets of North America, Europe and Japan. Hence, it is important for western companies to find ways to expand their business in these newer markets. For the second year in a row, more than two-thirds of our respondents say that supply chain excellence is providing an important means to support such expansion for their companies.

Although leveraging opportunities created by supply disruptions ranks last on our list of value drivers, this has actually changed most significantly in the space of 12 months. In 2012, 48% of those surveyed say this is of high or very high value – up from 40% last year. At the same time, the proportion saying it creates little or no value has fallen from 27% in 2011 to 23% today. Experiences garnered in the aftermath of the major disruptions in Japan and Thailand last year have no doubt convinced more supply chain professionals that such events tend to reward those whose strategies, plans and supplier communications are more finely tuned (for more on this, see Section 4).

There were some other ways mentioned by respondents on how value is created from high-performing supply chains. The bulk of these concerned the ability of the supply chain to reduce cost and be lean. This, in turn, leads to better utilisation of capital, reduced inventory and cycle time improvement. This is value related to operational cost reduction, one of the key contributions of supply chain management indicated earlier. The other key ways mentioned related to product quality improvements, which can be considered as a lever to enable new product introduction, premium pricing and market expansion.

Customers are willing to pay a premium price

if they value speed, flexibility

and reliable supply. Supply

chain excellence must therefore

encompass such levers.


Figure 2: Appreciation of supply chain’s role

Do you believe your CEO and executive management team appreciate the alignment of business strategy and supply chain strategy?

5931

8 2

Absolutely. Supply chain is understood as an equally important part of business success as sales & marketing or R&D/product development

Yes, but only as an enabler of product or sales-driven business strategies

Not really. Supply chain is understood primarily as a cost centre that affects margins

No. Supply chain is strictly seen as a function meant to service the business



local distribution partners, effective warehouse and trade management processes, and so on. Other levers, such as the ability to customise for local needs, the use of local manufacturing or sourcing capacity, and after-sales service support, are valued highly by the hi-tech sector.

Customers are willing to pay a premium price if they value speed, flexibility and reliable supply. Supply chain excellence must therefore encompass such levers. The hi-tech sector, as expected, values speed in the form of quick response, while the retail sector values reliable supply in the form on on-time and dependable delivery. Customers of logistics providers, however, value flexibility in delivery schedule change offered by these providers. And food and beverage respondents, as part of the consumer products sector, values flexibility in order quantity change.

For expanded offerings of value-added services to be a source of value creation, the key has to be that the customers see this as important, so that one can differentiate oneself from the competition. Our survey results indicate that the logistics and distribution industry has the highest proportion of respondents who see the offering of such value-added services as a source of competitive differentiation for their companies.

VALUE-CREATING ELEMENTS OF SUPPLY CHAIN EXCELLENCE In the survey, respondents who rated the dimensions described above as either high value or very high value were then asked about the specific attributes within each area that helped to deliver that value. Figure 4 shows the most relevant factors for value creation through supply chain excellence – those rated as “extremely relevant” by more than half of survey respondents.

As indicated, building customer loyalty through customer service is the most highly rated means for value creation through supply chain excellence. The factors for success come from the ability to convert customer loyalty into revenue gains. These factors naturally depend on whether customers use customer service as a purchasing decision criterion (rated most highly by hi-tech respondents), and whether a positive experience leads to a repeat purchase (rated highest among retail respondents). Assuming that these factors are in place, then strong value creation potential can result.

In the case of new product introduction, it is all about managing time. Supply chain management can be a way to speed up the new product development process (through strong integration of the supply chain and product development teams), provide timely and cost-effective launches, enable flexibility in product ramp-up, and orchestrate the phasing in of new products and the phasing out of existing products. Here, hi-tech companies again view such levers as more highly relevant than those in other sectors.

For new geographical market expansion, efficient distribution of products to customers and the ability to satisfy local regulatory requirements are both viewed as highly relevant, particularly in the CPG, healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. Since many of the new markets are likely to be in emerging economies where logistics and distribution infrastructures are not as well developed, successful penetration requires the ability to establish efficient channels. This requires well-managed information systems, the use of

Building greater customer loyalty through customer service is the most highly rated means for value creation through supply chain excellence.

Figure 3: Value of a high-performing supply chain

At your company, what is your assessment of the value created by having a high-performing supply chain?


No value whatsoever

Little value

Moderate value

High value

Very high value


15 40 413Enhanced customer service and customer loyalty

Stronger supplier relationships

Accelerated new product introduction

Expansion of business to new market segments in existing/new regions

Expanded offerings of value-added services


Leverage opportunities created by external supply disruptions

19 46 3141

20 43 3151

22 40 2982

30 41 2081

31 38 19102

30 30 18176


cost efficiency gives rise to quick response, lean processes, excellent service, cycle time reduction, favourable terms and conditions and speed in new product introduction (NPI). All of these levers are based on a supply chain being fast and cost efficient.

Flexibility and agility are related to the company’s ability to respond to unexpected situations, or to provide a bigger range of services. Hence, they are the anchor to support levers such as expanded and differentiated customer service, flexibility in responding to customers’ needs in delivery schedule, quantity and product mix, the complex processes of transition management, product ramp flexibilities, and providing contingency plans to unexpected disruptions. Reliability and accuracy are means to provide on-time delivery, on-schedule NPI, dependable customer service, consistency in distribution in new markets, and the dependency needed in contingency plans.

Lastly, the ability to collaborate with partners is the foundation for the levers of collaboration

Supply chain management

is no longer the engine in

the back of the company, but

at the front supporting

and enabling business growth.

Value creation channel Value creation levers % of respondents saying

‘extremely relevant’

New product introduction On-schedule product introduction

Ability to ramp up fast

Product development cycle time reduction

Ability to manage product transitions

63%

63%

58%

54%

Premium pricing Customer value of on-time, dependable delivery

Customer value of quick response

Customer value of your flexibility in delivery schedule change

Customer value of your flexibility in order quantity change

72%

61%

56%

53%

Expanded offering of value-added services Differentiation from competition with value-added services 61%

High levels of customer service Strength of customer service and repeat purchase

Importance of service as a criterion of customer purchase decision

58%

54%

New or existing geographical market

expansion

Distribution efficiency in new markets

Flexibility to satisfy local regulatory constraints

65%

63%

Exploit opportunities from external

disruptions

Response time to react

Existence of contingency plans for supply chain reactions

Strength of collaborative relationships

Visibility of needs or gaps resulting from external disruptions

74%

72%

63%

65%

Strategic supplier relationships Supplier giving you priority in times of tight supply

Strength of supplier loyalty

Supplier collaboration on design improvements

Supplier willing to take favourable terms

70%

58%

57%

55%


Exploiting opportunities presented by supply chain disruptions, meanwhile, requires an ability to generate quick response times and have contingency plans in place (with the retail sector valuing this the most), and collaborative relationships with partners and visibility of gaps created by external disruptions (with the hi-tech sector valuing this the most).

Lastly, value can be created through strategic supplier relationships. This can be achieved through the suppliers giving priority and loyalty to the company, collaboration on design improvements or favourable terms and conditions. Again, our survey data suggests that companies in the hi-tech sector put a slightly greater emphasis on these levers than do their peers.

The levers described above are all based on supply chain excellence, which is anchored on core competencies such as time and cost efficiency, flexibility and agility, reliability and accuracy, and collaboration. As illustrated in Figure 5, time and

Figure 4: Most relevant factors for value creation through supply chain excellence


with suppliers on design improvements, the ability to work with partners for quick response in times of disruptions, gaining visibility in the supply chain, and working with local partners for new market expansion.

It is clear from this year’s CSCO survey that supply chain management has come a long way within companies. It is still the backbone for operational cost reduction, and the supportive role of supply chain for business performance is still the foundation. But from 2011 to 2012 we have seen how companies are increasingly appreciating the need to align their supply chain strategies with their business strategies. This is because high-performing supply chains can also enable companies to create value and develop a competitive advantage.

There are many channels in which value and competitive advantage can be created via supply chain excellence, and different industry sectors are experiencing differential value in each. Many more companies are realising the power of supply


chain management to deliver tangible business results, and accordingly align their organisations such that supply chain management is an integral part of the executive suite. Supply chain management is no longer the engine in the back of the company, but at the front supporting and enabling business growth.

Figure 5: Strategy alignment and value creation

Time/cost efficiency

Flexibility & agility

Reliability & accuracy

Collaboration

Supply chain competency

Strategic supplier relationships

Accelerated new product intro

New market expansion

Expanded value-added services


Value creation:

• Revenue increase

• Long-term equity

improvement

Competitive advantage:

• Differentiated service

• Strategic supplier

engagement

Value creation levers Value creation channels Strategy alignment

Enhanced customer service


Leverage disruption opportunities

Supply priority & loyalty

Design collaborations

Favourable terms

Service & repeat purchase &

procurement criteria

NPI speed, ramp speed

Transitions management

Distribution efficiency

Flexibility for local needs

Differentiation from services

On-time delivery

Quick response

Flexibility in time & quantity

Response time

Collaborative relationships

Contingency plans, visibility


as choice, convenience and availability than to simply push for discounts. Our survey question even went so far as to explicitly call out that this receptivity to such trade-offs meant a willingness to “pay a premium for valued service”. Digital consumers want choice, not just cheap.

On the one hand this is good news. Consumer demand that can be effectively interpreted along these types of trade-offs can be served in some cases with higher-priced solution bundles and in other cases with bargain basement, stripped down assortments. The problem is that supply chains built to take standard orders or simply replenish a shelf are unlikely to be able to take and execute a complex order that may include extra packaging, assembly, shipping or professional service. The added complexity of fulfilling not only item/location/quantity combinations but also several other variations could pose serious problems for supply chain systems. More complexity in demand must be met with more capability in supply.

The data collected on this question also shows clearly that those closest to the consumer see this surge in complexity far more decisively than do those further up the chain. Retailers are most sensitive to this issue. By a ratio of more than 8:1 they expect consumers to be more receptive to complex offers. Logistics and distribution businesses, which are often handling the complex fulfilment requirements being driven by digital consumers, are second in most heavily leaning toward consumers’ receptivity to premium prices for value-added services.

Beyond these sectors, CPG, hi tech and food & beverages are all clearly anticipating more subtlety in consumer demand, while healthcare, pharmaceuticals and chemicals firms are much less sensitive to this trend (see Figure 7).

The implications of this data, especially when cut by industry sector, suggest that consumer-facing businesses will feel pain as their customers push for more specialised fulfilment, while suppliers’

2: DIGITAL CONSUMERS AND eCOMMERCE

The newly empowered

consumer is suddenly

expecting a lot more from the

global supply chain and is able to shift

allegiances very quickly if those

expectations are not met.

One of the most disruptive and fast-moving transitions impacting supply chains is the emergence of digitally empowered consumers. The transition involves far more than just online shopping via web stores. In fact, the digital revolution encompasses everything from communication and social interaction to opinion shaping and spatial tracking. It also permeates the physical space of supply chain by adding new points of sale (home computers, mobile devices), new retail functions (in-store kiosks, smart shelves) and new logistics considerations (direct-to-consumer fulfilment, in-store returns). Add the emerging potential for smart appliances, vehicles and infrastructure to the mix and it becomes clear that digitisation of consumer demand will force some radical changes in supply chains.

KING CUSTOMER MEANS MORE COMPLEXITY FOR SUPPLY CHAINS

Google any item and within a second thousands of options fill your screen. Where once the consumer knew little or nothing about what was available until they entered a retail store, today almost all have searched for what they want online before leaving the home. Further, they are likely to do more research on their smartphones once they’re in the mall perusing the shelves. This newly empowered consumer is suddenly expecting a lot more from the global supply chain and is able to shift allegiances very quickly if those expectations are not met.

One school of thought says that this surge in consumer power will take shape as a relentless push for ever lower prices. Amazon has shaken much of traditional retail by collapsing margins across many categories. Other innovations such as Groupon’s daily deal approach and eBay’s auction system all seem to point toward low prices as the dominant trend fostered by eCommerce. The data, however, rejects this premise. In fact, by a ratio of 4:1 overall, supply chain executives across industries see this new digital consumer as more likely to weigh price against other factors such


operations remain tuned to a cost competition, mass production mentality. Retailers or consumer products firms hoping to offer selections ranging from bargain basement configurations to high-end pack types may find less flexibility in the supply base than they need.

DEMAND COMPLEXITY REACHES BACK INTO THE SUPPLY CHAIN

To pursue the notion of supply chain complexity increasing with digital demand we also asked what supply chain professionals expected in terms of SKU assortments, distribution network design, manufacturing strategies, and direct-to-consumer fulfilment. In each case, the data shows that those closest to the consumer are expecting more of the global supply chain than are those upstream.

Overall, respondents see an increase in SKU complexity with 25% agreeing that “eCommerce and mobile-enabled customers will drive much larger SKU assortments as brands pursue ever smaller niches of demand”. The opposite answer, that these customers will “drive smaller SKU assortments as brands simplify to cut costs in response to price pressure”, was chosen by half as many (13%), while more than a third said the drive would be toward “some SKU expansion” and another quarter saw little or no effect.

Cut by industry, this data confirms the pattern that those closest to consumers expect the greatest pressure to offer more variety (see Figure 9). Retailers and distribution businesses, for instance, are most likely to say they expect “much larger” SKU assortments, perhaps because they are already experiencing this trend. A Wells Fargo investment research report last year claimed that Amazon offered 80 times the number of items as did Wal-Mart.com, suggesting that the bar for variety is getting higher quickly. Other sectors with close consumer ties such as CPG and hi tech also anticipate more SKU expansion than chemicals and industrials. Some of this SKU expansion may come in the final stages of the value chain with minor packaging differentiation


Figure 6: Consumer demand variability

Within the context of your industry, do you believe the eCommerce and mobile-enabled customer of the future will be:

25

61

14


Figure 7: Customer receptiveness to variable offers vs lowest price only

Healthcare & Pharmaceutical

Chemical

Industrial

CPG

Hi Tech

Food & Beverage

Logistics & Distribution

Retail

Ratio of variable offer to lowest pricen=1,335

Figure 8: SKU complexity

Within the context of your industry, do you believe the eCommerce and mobile-enabled customer of the future will drive larger or smaller SKU assortments?

1325

36

26


Drive much larger SKU assortments as brands pursue ever smaller niches of demand

Drive some SKU expansion as brands pursue some smaller niches of demand

Have little or no effect on SKU assortments

Drive smaller SKU assortments as brands simplify to cut costs in response to price pressure

More receptive to offers trading product choice, price point, availability and convenience against each other (i.e., willing to pay a premium for valued service, or accept inconvenience in return for lower price)

Less receptive to offers trading product choice, price point, availability and convenience against each other (i.e., only interested in lowest price)

The same as regards offers trading product choice, price point, availability and convenience against each other

8.25

1.21

7.43

5.2

5.07

4.78

3.76

2.55


or other late stage bill of materials variation, but one wonders whether tier suppliers upstream are ready for the differential demand pressures that this consumer trend implies.

An interesting observation in the data here shows that hi-tech and distribution firms are most clearly expecting at least some impact on SKU assortments from the digital consumer. Logistics and distribution respondents who are most likely to say they expect “much larger SKU assortments” are also least likely (16%) to say they expect “little or no impact”. Clearly, eCommerce is changing their world. Hi-tech respondents are similarly unlikely (17%) to say they expect little or no change, but interestingly are the most likely of all to see a drive toward smaller SKU assortments (18%).

This finding may reflect a level of sophistication associated with the steeper learning curve in hi tech exemplified by the case of Motorola, which under new leadership recently installed by Google is reportedly planning to “cut the number of devices [it] makes from the 27 it introduced last year to just a few”1. Apple, whose product line-up is famously simple, seems to be able to succeed by pushing its complexity into the post-purchase content assortment rather than physical

inventory. Complexity may be on the rise with digital demand, but not all businesses plan to tackle it in the same way.

Not all respondents feel the pressure. Half of all chemicals companies, for instance, see little or no change and healthcare and pharmaceuticals respondents are similarly more likely to say they expect no change than either an increase or decrease. For chemicals supply chains this makes sense as they are, to a large degree, limited by asset-intensive production facilities that cannot readily increase variety without capital expenditures. Healthcare supply chains, however, which are increasingly impacted by new channels like Express Scripts online drug ordering, may be overlooking a wave of change at their peril.

Putting some rough estimates around this opinion data shows that those closer to consumers see SKU counts increasing by 15-20%, while tier suppliers look for closer to a 5-10% increase (see Figure 10). Somewhere in here agility must make up the difference. If the 1,350-plus supply chain professionals in our sample are right, we should anticipate at least a 10% increase in the total number of unique items available for sale in the near future. Coupled with the data above indicating consumers’ desire for more variation

Figure 9: SKU complexity by industry

Within the context of your industry, do you believe the eCommerce and mobile-enabled customer of the future will drive larger or smaller SKU assortments?

Chemicals Healthcare & Pharma

IndustrialFood & Beverage

Hi TechCPG RetailLogistics & Distribution

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Much larger (+50%)

Somewhat larger (10%)

Little or no change

Smaller (-10%)

Figure 10: Overall SKU change

Estimated % change

Chemicals 5

21

6913161718

n=1,337

Healthcare & Pharma

Industrial

Food & Beverage

Hi Tech

CPG

Retail


1 New York Times, 13 August 2012


chain) to share DC facilities across suppliers in order to have more nodes of supply closer to stores with tighter delivery windows and smaller shipments. A similar argument may apply to fresh food businesses like Sysco whose network must manage multiple temperature zones and deliver prepared items as well as packaged items.

Closer examination of the data reveals a difference between consumer-facing businesses and tier suppliers with some mild bias in favour of larger, more centralised distribution centres in the eyes of those closest to the consumer. There also seems to be some mild correlation between those who say they expect much more SKU variety and those anticipating the bigger DCs. Interviews around this topic suggest that the likely answer for most, regardless of industry, is a bit of both.

One takeaway may lie in seeing the link between wide product assortments and mega-scale in warehouse management as a means of delivering on the “long tail” supply chain. Another may be that complex value-added services able to justify premium pricing are best served at the local level. CPG and food & beverages were the only two sectors more likely to bet on smaller, local DCs than on larger, centralised DCs. Long-tail supply

in sale offers it looks likely that supply chains’ fulfilment duties are set to become dramatically more challenging.

THE DISTRIBUTION CENTRE OF THE FUTURE: BIGGER AND SMALLER

In terms of distribution networks, eCommerce and the digital consumer are also driving change. The most obvious element of this change has been the Amazon phenomenon where direct-to-consumer, non-store retail has upended the economics of consumer spending by building dozens of new warehouses in the past few years. The trend could be toward “gigantism” (a term used to describe supply chains in mining) with examples like Marks & Spencer’s East Midlands distribution centre in the UK which consolidates all fulfilment of stores in-region, eCommerce worldwide and international sales arising as a means to provide the agility demanded of supply chains by the digital consumer.

A counter argument can be made for smaller, more local distribution centres (DCs) which may allow quick turnaround response and higher-touch customer service support. One such example is an effort made by Seven and I Holdings (parent company of the 7-Eleven stores

If the 1,385 supply chain professionals in our sample are right, we should anticipate at least a 10% increase in the number of unique items on sale in the near future.


Figure 11: Distribution centre design

Within the context of your industry, do you believe the eCommerce and mobile-enabled customer of the future will:


Drive brands to pursue the lowest possible cost mass manufacturing strategies

Drive brands to develop mass customisation manufacturing strategies

Have little or no effect on brands’ manufacturing strategies

Figure 12: Manufacturing strategies


26

35

39 % of respondentsn=1,338

23

41

36

Require smaller, more local distribution centres serving separate channels

Require larger, more centralised distribution centres serving many/all channels

Require minimal change to existing distribution centre networks

n=1,337


chain may work well in a lights-out, automated warehouse for books, electronics and luxury items but may require kitchens, workshops and a friendly face for grocery items.

MANUFACTURING STRATEGIES SCHIZOPHRENIA

Added complexity at the consumers’ point of sale implies more variety upstream. If this variety is limited to final packaging or presentation it is possible that manufacturing strategies will be largely unchanged. Otherwise, tier suppliers will be looked to for more flavours, colours, sizes and configurations. Of course, powerful consumers able to search online for the lowest possible prices might also force manufacturers of plastics, food ingredients, fasteners or electronic components to streamline production for lower unit costs.

Digital consumer power appears ready to inform product innovation too, potentially helping to forecast demand for “hot” products. Winners often surge ahead of capacity, leaving money on the table, while losers show up as excess and obsolete inventory write-offs. Spain’s Zara built a manufacturing and supply chain strategy explicitly around this problem even before eCommerce and digital consumers had really

emerged. Manufacturing strategies based on the Henry Ford quip “any colour you want as long as it’s black” may struggle in this new world.

At an aggregate level our respondents are split on this issue. While only a quarter overall see little or no effect on manufacturing strategies, the remainder break almost evenly between those who agree that the emergence of eCommerce and digital/mobile consumers will “drive brands to develop mass-customisation manufacturing strategies” and those who expect “lowest possible cost mass manufacturing strategies” to dominate.

Chemicals companies are by far the most likely to say their manufacturing strategies will not change (54%), while hi-tech firms are clearly the most convinced that they will see changes in manufacturing (16% see “little or no effect”). Retail is the only industry sector whose respondents are more likely to foresee more mass customisation in manufacturing than low-cost mass production. Other sectors generally forecast change in manufacturing approaches with a mild bias in favour of lower-cost mass production.

Here again, we see the same theme of those closest to consumers bracing for change while those upstream wait to see the impact. It is telling that hi-tech firms, whose product lifecycles are shortest and learning curves steepest, seem most certain that manufacturing will be impacted by eCommerce and the digital consumer.

This group (comprising 336 survey respondents) is nearly evenly split between believers in low-cost mass production and more variable mass customisation, suggesting that the end game may include significant amounts of both approaches. Certain inputs may well be so commoditised (memory chips, for instance) that consumers, no matter how informed or discerning, simply don’t care. These will likely gravitate to ever more massive, basic production operations. Other inputs (exterior shells, for instance) could benefit from unique designs, demanding smaller batch runs on more flexible production lines.

It is telling that hi-tech firms,

whose product lifecycles are shortest and

learning curves steepest, seem

most certain that manufacturing strategies will

be impacted by eCommerce and the digital

consumer.


Figure 13: Customer fulfilment


Drive brands to rely on eCommerce retailers for customer fulfilment

Drive brands to develop direct-to-customer fulfilment capabilities

Have little impact on existing retail channels for customer fulfilment


21

56

23


eCommerce have provided channel fulfilment to many brands for years now. Recently, however, some appear to be taking the function back in house (Marks & Spencer, Target and Clark’s shoes have all been cited in media reports within the past year as moving this way). Interviews with some large CPG companies have also pointed toward supply chain strategists developing their own direct-to-consumer capabilities as a way to maintain visibility to demand and sell more product at retail rather than wholesale prices.

The execution implications of this movement are profound. While shipping full pallets to Amazon’s DCs is a familiar process for most manufacturers, picking, packing and shipping to individual consumers is another matter entirely. Secondary packaging, in particular, adds cost and hassle to consumers who may end up associating brands’ performance in fulfilment with satisfaction in consumption of the product itself. Also, the added inventory needed to populate a full assortment and quick response supply chain means more cost.

Getting the execution right while keeping costs under control will, in many cases, mean changes in production processes even further upstream to allow inventory buffering prior to

DIRECT TO CONSUMER AND CHANGES TO RETAIL

Perhaps the most obvious implication of eCommerce is that all companies have an opportunity to make more direct contact with their customers. For industrial or B2B brands this connection lends itself to ever deeper product information sharing, forecast collaboration and order streamlining, but is essentially just a super-powered version of the telephone-and-catalogue relationship it replaces. For consumer brands, the implications reach into order management and fulfilment and potentially mean significant changes to channels.

When asked about how these trends will affect channels, a clear majority overall believe that eCommerce and digital consumers will “drive brands to develop direct-to-customer fulfilment capabilities”. Nearly a quarter of respondents see the future driving brands to “rely on eCommerce retailers for customer fulfilment”, suggesting that many see the need to serve customers with home delivery but that they expect to outsource this function to specialists like Amazon. Around a fifth of the respondent pool sees little impact on existing channels.

Industry cuts show some decisive, if obvious, differences. Hi tech and retail each believe overwhelmingly (by a ratio of 6:1) that brands will develop direct-to-customer fulfilment rather than leave channels alone. Healthcare, pharmaceutical and chemicals firms are much more likely than those in other industries to see the future in terms of minimal channel change. The takeaway suggests that classes of product suitable to classic online shopping (consumer electronics, apparel) are gearing up to ship direct to the home. One wonders what pharmaceuticals is thinking.

The more interesting finding in this data may be the relatively low and strangely consistent percentage of respondents across industries who anticipate relying on eCommerce retailers for fulfilment. Amazon and its peers in pure-play

An interesting finding may be the relatively low and strangely consistent percentage of respondents across industries who anticipate relying on eCommerce retailers for fulfilment.


Figure 14: Social media and supply chains today

What effect, if any, is social media (Chatter, Facebook, expert blogs/chatroom, etc) having on your company’s supply chain strategy today?


No effect

Improved communication with trading partners

Integrate structured and unstructured information

Improved demand sensing and forecasting

Competitive advantage

Improved employee productiviity

47

27

23

21

17

11


the finished goods stage. Imagine consumer-ordered configurations rolling directly off a packaging line. The engineering needed mirrors what BMW does in its vehicle plants or Dell did in its Austin PC factories during the heyday of build-to-order dominance.

SOCIAL MEDIA DOESN’T DO MUCH NOW, BUT MANY EXPECT IT TO HELP

The digital consumer of the future does not only shop. He or she also tweets, blogs, posts on Facebook and otherwise shares feelings about life, including which products rock and which do not. The social media wave that seems overwhelmingly powerful in terms of modern culture may be relevant to supply chain strategies, although no one seems perfectly clear how.

Nearly half of our survey respondents (47%) say that social media is having “no effect” on their company’s supply chains today. Of those who do see some impact, the most common is “improved communication with trading partners”, rather than anything to do with customers. Only 21% see “improved demand sensing and forecasting”, despite abundant discussion about how important Facebook, Twiiter and the like are to brand building and consumer influence.

When cut by industry and geography, however, some potentially important trends emerge. Hi tech is clearly the most confident that social media has an effect today, while chemicals roundly dismisses it. Asian respondents are similarly decisive in being the most likely to see immediate impacts from social media on supply chain strategy, while European respondents are least convinced. The correlation may be explained in terms of growth rates. European mobile networks are top notch and the UK has the highest rate of eCommerce penetration of any major country, so technophobia is probably not an explanation. The higher growth rates seen in Asia as compared to other geographies and hi tech as compared to other industries suggests that, as a strategic tool, social media may be most valuable in volatile markets.

Looking ahead at how social media might affect supply chain strategies in the future, we see significantly more optimism. Over half (56%) of all respondents expect social media to provide real-time customer feedback and significant minorities look for product enhancement information or “hot” product predictions (see Figure 15). Cut by industry, this data also shows that expectations of impact are not limited to those high-growth areas that are seeing effects today. Retailers, for instance, are particularly hopeful that social media will offer real-time customer feedback (80%) and help forecast hot products (65%). CPG manufacturers are most bullish on the role social media will play in influencing product innovation (52%). Geographically, it is in the Americas, rather than Asia, where optimism about social media and supply chain influence is highest. Social media’s role in supply chain strategy is still decidedly unsure, but many see the potential for it to make a difference.

Our survey participants offered some other novel ideas for social media in supply chain’s future. Among the most interesting are quality early warning systems, compliance support, supplier health tracking, or even “as a source of feedback

Respondents in Asia are the most likely to

see immediate impacts from social media

on supply chain strategy.


Figure 15: Social media and supply chains in the future

How do you expect social media to inform your company’s supply chain management practices in the future?


Source of real-time customer feedback

Inform product enhancement/ innovation priorities

Provide advance warning of potential supply disruptions

Help forecast demand for ‘hot’ products

Shed light on social/environmental practices

Other

56

46

41

39

33

5


(transaction data only, web store data, geospatial data, and private web data such as Google searches) and at the aggregate and individual levels. The answer is that many are still hesitant to take full advantage of all the information today’s digital consumer is putting out there.

The only type of data respondents are clearly comfortable mining is traditional customer transaction data, and while there is a bit less certainty that individuals’ data should be probed it is clear that most supply chain professionals see this as fair game. Web store data, which might be seen as owned by the business, is significantly less acceptable as an area to mine. This may reflect some degree of privacy concern around clickstream analysis or other methods of analysing the customer’s thought process.

Here, as at every level of the analysis, respondents are more comfortable using this data in aggregate than at the individual customer level. Going deeper into data that tracks customers’ physical movements seems for many to go too far. At the deepest level, where customers’ personal web data including things like their search history and social network affiliations are found, the view is that mining this for business advantage is not acceptable.

from employees on company performance and practices”. One consumer packaged goods CSCO offered the following summary of what is conceivable: “Cloud base supply network visibility from consumer, to customer shelf, to manufacturer, to suppliers’ supplier is where we’re headed.” Having interviewed this same executive in the past, it is clear that this really is the company’s plan.

Social media is very likely to be at least part of your supply chain strategy. Among businesses close to the consumer, demand sensing is expected to be important. Even for the most asset-intensive basic materials industries it is conceivable that “sentiment analysis” based on social networking could forecast price movements in commodities that might help with capital planning.

MINING FOR INSIGHT: WHAT IS TOO DEEP?

During a discussion on the topic of digital commerce earlier this year, a member of SCM World’s Executive Advisory Board posed the question of how far it was reasonable to dig into customer data given the massive amount of detailed information now available on the movements, interests and preferences of individuals.

Consumer insight used to rely on relatively dumb point-of-sale data mixed with third party (IRI, Nielsen) data and market research. Experience, instinct and guesswork came together to paint a picture of demand across customer segments. Today, many consumers carry GPS-enabled mobile devices that link to his or her entire intellectual universe of email, web searches, social networking and more. Cross-referencing all of these data sets could, in theory, deliver incredibly deep, granular analyses of exactly what each person is willing to buy, when and where. How deeply should demand planners drill into this data before they strike a nerve?

We asked our survey respondents how appropriate they believe it is probe into these new data sets to develop customer insights at four levels of depth

Conducting deep analysis of data on customers’ physical movements seems for many to go too far.


Figure 16: Customer data mining

Within the context of your company/industry, please indicate your level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements about the use of customer data:

Weighted average rating, 1-5 scalen=1,346

Customer transaction data should be mined to

understand buying behaviour

Customer webstore data (cookies, eCommerce

history) should be mined to understand buying behaviour

Customer geospatial data (mobile GPS) should be

mined to understand buying behaviour

Customer private web data (Google search, Facebook,

etc) should be mined to understand buying behaviour

4.083.75

3.553.27

3.202.98

2.892.69

Disagree Agree Neutral

At an aggregate level

At an individual level


Cutting the survey data by industry and geography further corroborates what we have seen elsewhere in this section – namely, that supply chains closest to the consumer are most aggressive in looking for ways to engage and serve this emerging digital/mobile demand. Retail, in particular, is most bullish on all means of drilling into customer data, both at an aggregate and individual level. Even for personal web data, retailers agree (although just barely: 3.05 individual and 3.35 aggregate on a 1-5 scale, where 3 is neutral) that analysis to “understand buying behaviour” is appropriate. For healthcare and pharmaceuticals, however, the opposite is true. These respondents generally believe that mining anything other than transaction data is inappropriate.

Geographically, Asian respondents are clearly the most comfortable using all types of customer data, both in aggregate and individually. Even in the use of personal web data at an individual level, Asian respondents are only just negative (2.91 on our weighted scale), indicating that even here most are at worst neutral about whether to poke around individuals’ web search histories or Facebook pages. Europeans generally don’t consider it appropriate to mine such data and are least in agreement across the board.

These findings suggest that despite the digitisation of demand hurtling forward in terms of technical enablement, we won’t have anything like the “real-time global supply network” anytime soon. Data mining tools are certainly available to digest all of this customer information, and consumers, despite lip service given to privacy worries, are happy to leave their electronic footprint everywhere. If anything, it appears that consumers are more comfortable having their demand data scrutinised than businesses think. Retailers may be right about this – consumer data probably should be drilled into more deeply than is currently the case.

The forces of change arising from today’s digitally empowered consumer appear set to

drive tremendous complexity upstream into the supply chain for every class of product. Those closest to the consumer are feeling the pressure most acutely and will inevitably look back to their supply base for support. The immediate implications include more and better flexibility in packaging, retail presentation and configuration options. These forces will drive suppliers of raw materials and components to streamline changeovers for their brand-owning customers and carry inventory that allows variable demand to be met without overburdening working capital. Considering these trends, it appears that supply chain organisations’ ultimate imperative may be assuring agility.

Despite the digitisation of

demand hurtling forward, we

won’t have a real-time global supply network

anytime soon.



Corporate executives, from the board level down, are increasingly concerned with their supply chain’s performance across social and environmental dimensions. Environmental responsibility includes the control and containment of the carbon footprint, energy usage and pollution of the supply chain. Social responsibility includes health and safety, labour practices and contribution to the well-being of local communities. The initial attention has been on a company’s own internal operations, but that has rapidly shifted to the extended supply chain. Whether a company is legally liable or not, the negative publicity and the resulting scrutiny by the general public of violations that occur in its extended supply chain are significant enough that the scope of social and environmental responsibility (hereafter referred to as SER) often consists of multiple tiers of the supply network.

Why are companies so concerned with SER? This year, 71% of our survey respondents indicated that the motivation is to create a positive customer image and enhance brand equity (slightly down on last year – see Figure 17). Hence, the driving force remains customers and the general public. This is strongest in the chemicals industry, where more than three-quarters of respondents (77%) say this is the case. The second biggest driver of SER, as

This year, 43% of participants say cost reduction and greater efficiency in the use of energy and materials is the driver of their SER efforts – up from 31% in 2011.

3: SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

in 2011, is government regulations. Almost half of respondents (49%) indicated that SER efforts are designed to satisfy government regulations – a rise of seven percentage points year on year.

CUTTING THE COST OF GREENER PRODUCTS

But perhaps the most interesting finding concerns the third main driver: cost reduction and greater efficiency through better use of energy and materials, reducing waste, and so on. This year, 43% of participants say this is the driver of their SER efforts – up from 32% in 2011. At the same time, the proportion who believe their board’s reason for investing in SER is to boost sales has fallen sharply. This is a major change. The implication could be that as more companies mature in their

Figure 17: Drivers of SER investment

What is your best judgment of your board’s motivations for investing in SER?


Create a positive customer image and enhance

brand equity

Satisfy government regulations

Reduce costs and/or increase efficiency (e.g., through better use of energy, raw materials)

Ensure no disruption of supply

Fend off shareholder or external PR concerns

Increase sales revenue

7175

4942

4332

37

30

28

22

1731

2012

2011

SER journeys, they are beginning to see that the benefits come not so much from sales revenue (customers being generally unwilling to pay more for socially or environmentally friendly products), but from reducing the cost of manufacturing and distributing their products. The gap between the two is widest in the food and beverage sector, where 53% of respondents say cost reduction and efficiency gains are the driver compared with just 13% who say increased sales revenue.

Of course, switching to new materials, improving the energy efficiency of production processes, and increasing the amount of recycling and reuse of materials takes time. But our research findings and conversations with supply chain leaders suggest that companies are beginning to move more in this direction, and we expect to see further evidence of this shift in the next couple of years.

Ensuring no disruption of supply and fending off shareholder or external public relations concerns also both increased by several points this year. A small percentage of participants told us there were “other” reasons for SER efforts. Most indicated that these were derived from corporate beliefs and corporate culture: their companies want to do the right things for the earth, the community and mankind in general.


VISIBILITY AND MONITORING OF SER VIOLATIONS

SCM World has advocated a Six Sigma process cycle as a good framework to look at SER efforts. This cycle has four stages: measure-identify-analyse-act. Measuring SER performance, identifying and analysing root causes, having corrective actions in place to improve performance, and then continuously measuring and going through the cycle is the basis of a sound SER journey.

Visibility of SER performance can be accomplished at two levels. At the first level, supply chain executives need to have visibility of SER violations in their supply chains. This is necessary, but it is not the most effective means to manage SER. The ideal visibility is continuous monitoring of performance before violations occur. This is analogous to how we manage quality. It is necessary for us to have a good final inspection process so that we are able to identify defects in finished products.

But that is not good enough. We need process monitoring systems in place to make sure minimal or zero defects are produced during the manufacturing and assembly stages.

In this year’s survey we asked about both the visibility and monitoring of SER performance. What we found is a strong correlation between the monitoring systems that supply chain executives have in place and the visibility of SER violations. In other words, most executives are relying on the monitoring systems to know if there have been violations or not, and these are generally effective.

Visibility of SER performance starts with having visibility and monitoring of one’s own internal operations. A more progressive company will also have visibility of their immediate suppliers. And the most advanced ones will, in addition, also have visibility of their extended supply networks. Hence, companies should strive to be at the most advanced level of having total visibility of the extended supply network.

In 2012 we found that a quarter of companies have visibility of both environmental and social standards violations in their extended supply networks (see Figures 18 and 19). Visibility at the immediate supplier level was slightly higher, at 28% and 29% respectively, while internal visibility was higher still, constituting 39% and 38%. It is gratifying to see that a larger proportion of companies now have visibility

Figure 18: Environmental performance visibility

At which of the following levels do you have visibility of environmental sustainability performance measures (e.g., carbon footprint)?

Figure 19: Social performance visibility

At which of the following levels do you have visibility of social sustainability measures (e.g., violations of labour compliance regulations)?

SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

8

25

28

39

9

24

29

38



None

Extended supply network

Immediate suppliers

Internally


violations and monitoring systems lies in the extended supply network. Less than a fifth of companies have monitoring systems in place for their extended supply networks, compared with the quarter that have visibility of environmental and social sustainability violations (see Figures 20 and 21). Such violations are “easier” to capture, whereas ongoing monitoring systems require much bigger efforts and investments. Hence, we are still far from having many advanced companies that are able to monitor their extended supply networks effectively.

CORRECTIVE ACTION: FIRMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SWITCH SUPPLIERS

Once out-of-control states are identified, and assignable causes and opportunities are analysed, the Six Sigma process can move on to the fourth step: act. In SER supply chains, action involves both correcting problems and putting in place processes or systems designed to improve SER performance.

In terms of corrective actions, we found that companies do react promptly when suppliers are found to have breached SER standards. Around two-thirds of respondents say they give suppliers a warning first before taking punitive

beyond their internal operations (since the total sum of percentages for those with visibility of immediate and extended supply networks is greater than the percentage with visibility of internal operations). At the same time, fewer than 1 in 10 companies say they have no visibility of any environmental or social compliance violations in their supply chains.

Another observation is that visibility of environmental and social compliance violations seem to be tied together. Hence, companies treat both types of violations as equally important and would not have visibility of one without the other. Compared with last year’s findings, there are definitely more companies with visibility of their extended supply networks this year. This indicates that good progress has been made in extending visibility to a more comprehensive supply network.

The observations about monitoring systems of SER performance are quite similar to the visibility of SER violations. Again, the most advanced companies have monitoring systems in place for their extended supply networks, followed by those having systems for immediate suppliers and then for internal operations only. The most distinct difference between the visibility of SER

It is gratifying to see that a larger proportion of companies now have visibility of SER violations beyond their internal operations.


Figure 20: Environmental performance monitoring

At which of the following levels do you have monitoring systems in place for environmental sustainability performance measures?

Figure 21: Social performance monitoring

At which of the following levels do you have monitoring systems in place for social sustainability measures?

10

19

26

45

10

19

27

44



None


Immediate suppliers

Internally



actions if things do not improve, while a third take immediate action without giving suppliers a second chance. This shows just how seriously companies take violations of their social and environmental standards.

So what are the consequences for suppliers if they fail to comply? As Figure 23 shows, the most likely – used by more than half of companies, regardless of whether or not they issue a warning first – is to reduce the amount of business they give to a supplier. More than 4 out of 10 opt to terminate the business relationship completely. Monetary fines are the least popular tactic, used by less than 15% of companies, indicating that most do not believe these are an effective means of correcting the violation problems.

The main difference between this year’s findings and those in 2011 is that companies seem more willing to terminate the relationship altogether rather than reduce the volume of business. This trend is most significant among those that issue a warning first. In 2011, 73% said they would reduce business and 36% would terminate the relationship. In 2012, these figures are 58% and 42% respectively. Among the third of respondents who say their companies take immediate action without warning, those reducing business fell

from 56% to 53% year on year, while those terminating the relationship increased from 42% to 47%.

Although the most likely consequence of non-compliance remains a warning followed by reduced business (52% of the sample overall, compared with 20% who immediately terminate the relationship), our findings indicate that companies are both increasing the pressure they put on suppliers to improve SER performance and changing the way they respond to violations. Increasingly, they are willing to stop using those responsible for breaches of social or environmental standards and find alternative suppliers to replace them.

INCENTIVES FOR SUPPLIERS TO IMPROVE SER PERFORMANCE

Of course, suppliers need to be committed and motivated to help their customers make progress in SER in a way that enhances their public image and brand equity. Many studies have found that the best way to ensure this is not more compliance audits, but to collaborate with suppliers so that they benefit from SER improvements and are willing to invest time, money and resources in a way that supports their customers’ objectives.

Companies are increasing the pressure they

put on suppliers to improve SER

performance.

Figure 22: Warning signals

If suppliers are found to be in breach of your company’s SER standards, do you give a warning first before imposing “penalties”?


68

32


Warning first

No warning

Figure 23: Penalties for breach of SER standards

Warning first, followed by

No warning, immediate action

taken in the form of


Monetary fines

Reduced business

Termination of business relationship

14

58

42

13

53

47


supplier relationship and customer satisfaction improvements. And 41% have seen at least good results in terms of operating cost reduction – almost the same percentage who say this is a driver of their SER investments, as we noted earlier in this section. A small number of respondents indicated some other benefits, such as better brand image, public relations, employee morale and working environment, community contributions, and image as an industry leader. Sector analysis of the data suggests that hi tech, logistics and CPG seem to be industries that have derived greater benefits from their SER efforts.

Although the scale used for this question varied slightly from the one in 2011, we can still make some year-on-year comparisons. In 2011, the top benefit (combining the ratings of 4 and 5 on a 1-5 scale) was customer satisfaction improvement (47%), followed by reduced violations of government regulations and laws (44%), supplier relationship improvements (35%), new or improved sales opportunities (32%) and operating cost reduction (31%). Comparing these findings with those in Figure 25, we can see that the 2012 results are better across the board. This suggests that companies are seeing more substantial results from their SER efforts than they were a year ago.

For the second year running, our CSCO survey shows that the most widely used incentives are preferred supplier status (giving priority for future business) and increased business engagements. However, the proportion of respondents who say their companies use preferred supplier status has fallen from two-thirds in 2011 to 58% now. Increased business engagements show no change year on year at slightly under half of the sample (see Figure 24). At the same time, the numbers willing to grant price premiums and better terms and conditions to suppliers in exchange for SER commitments and improvements has risen slightly. This suggests that the mix of incentives may be changing somewhat as companies gain more experience about the most effective ways to incentivise suppliers. Granting preferred supplier status is a positive incentive, but it is not as concrete a benefit as better terms and conditions and price premiums. As companies began to realise the positive cost savings and benefits of SER efforts, they are willing to give more explicit benefits to their suppliers.

In general, we also found that companies in the hi-tech and CPG sectors tend to be more likely to use the incentives described, while those in the logistics and distribution industry are least likely. (More than a fifth of logistics firms offer no incentives, for example, compared with 12% across all sectors.) And among those respondents who indicated that their companies used other means, the most common are supplier assessment programmes to identify capability and performance gaps, knowledge sharing with suppliers, and participation in industry forums or industry-wide SER programmes.

LEGAL COMPLIANCE AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE BIG WINNERS

What about the benefits companies are getting from their SER efforts? In 2012, reduced violations of government regulations and laws are the most significant, with 60% of survey respondents claiming good or substantial results. More than half also say the same about

As companies begin to realise the positive cost savings and benefits of SER efforts, they are willing to give more explicit benefits to their suppliers.

Figure 25: SER incentives for suppliers



Preferred supplier status (priority for future business)

Increased business engagements

You invest in training and education

Public recognition (e.g., supplier of the year awards)

Better terms and conditions

Price premiums 2012

2011

5866

4848

4244

3232

2522

810

8


The 16-point jump in benefits from reduced violations of government regulations and laws in 2012 is interesting. A possible explanation is that governments have tightened their scrutiny and enforcement of such regulations. And the 19-point jump on supplier relationship improvements indicates that companies are finding beneficial ways to collaborate on SER initiatives. Overall, our evidence shows that such initiatives are maturing and more of the investments in SER are beginning to pay off. This is indeed a very encouraging trend.

OBSTACLES TO SER PROGRESS REMAIN SIGNIFICANT

Despite this progress, however, measuring the benefits of SER initiatives continues to challenge many companies. Almost 6 out of 10 survey participants say this is “somewhat” or “extremely” challenging. Just one percentage point behind is the customer not caring or price pressure (which drew the highest proportion of “extremely” challenging responses, at 15%) and a lack of resources. In addition, supplier resistance and a lack of internal knowledge and expertise are both rated challenging by half of our sample (see Figure 26), so the barriers to forging socially

and environmental responsible supply chains should not be underestimated.

Although, once again, we are not able to compare the results of 2012 with those of 2011 directly, the qualitative results suggest that the key obstacles and challenges are more or less the same.

The observation of customer not caring and no price premium being a major challenge is an interesting one. At first glance it may seem at odds with the earlier results that customers are increasing their efforts and stepping up their punitive actions for SER violations. How can we interpret this finding? One explanation is that a company will typically have multiple customers, some of whom may be extremely concerned with SER performance and some not. As a supplier, one still has to improve SER in general, and getting the latter group of customers to care and be appreciative of these efforts can be a major challenge.

Moreover, we have seen that only 10% of companies are willing to offer price premiums as an incentive for supplier SER improvements. So investing here could be very challenging when the supplier is already faced with cost pressures. To

Global brands such as Apple and Samsung have attracted

significant negative publicity

during the past 12 months as a

result of SER violations by their

suppliers.

Figure 25: SER benefits

What kind of results have you achieved through your SER efforts to date?

Figure 26: SER challenges


No measurable returns

Customers do not care / price pressure

Lack of resources

Supplier resistance

Lack of knowledge and expertise to pursue improvement projects

Internal resistance

Reduced violations of government regulations and laws

Supplier relationship improvement

Customer satisfaction improvement


New or improved sales opportunities

11 17 3912 21

12 26 428 12

13 26 408 13

18 27 3314 8

20 32 2714 7

8 27 507 9

9 29 434 15

10 27 445 14

14 32 435 7

12 31 428 8

17 31 3017 4

Not at all challenging

Somewhat unchallenging

Neither

Somewhat challenging

Extremely challenging

None

Minor

Moderate

Good

Substantial




and respond approach. Sensitivity to SER performance is increasing, and more companies than in 2011 have been able to gain visibility and control of SER violations in the extended supply network.

However, a big gap still exists, and many more companies still have only limited visibility today. In response, companies are becoming more stringent about SER violations, with one-third of our participants reacting to SER violations with immediate actions without warning. At the same time, investing in collaborative efforts and creating incentives are found to be the effective way for proactive SER improvements. Challenges remain, but it is clear that SER efforts are starting to become a central thrust of a company’s overall supply chain strategy.

address such challenges, we see the importance of industry-wide efforts or joint programmes in helping to unify the value and priority that companies put on SER performance. Equally important is ensuring that suppliers do not perceive SER efforts as costly, and that there is real business value to be gained.

COMPANIES ARE STEPPING UP THEIR IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS

As for the future outlook of SER efforts, our findings show that the biggest focus areas for companies will be continuing to work with their immediate suppliers (73% are planning to increase their efforts here), internal operations (71%) and their extended supply network (65%). This is followed by internal product design (63%) and customers (56%) – see Figure 27

Comparing these figures with those from our 2011 survey (which used an identical question), we see an increase in the proportion of respondents planning to step up their efforts of at least five percentage points across the board. In the case of supply networks, both immediate and extended, the 2012 figures are double-digit percentages higher – 21 points and 14 points respectively. The significant negative publicity for major global brands, such as Apple and Samsung, stemming from suppliers’ SER violations during the past 12 months could explain the heightened attention here. As in 2011, companies are working on multiple dimensions in their SER efforts. And SER improvements can only be made with integrated and collective efforts involving internal operations, suppliers, customer support and engineering/product development functions.

From this year’s survey, we see that most companies have come a long way on the SER journey. There is sufficient evidence that their SER efforts are paying off with real cost savings, and companies are maturing in their experience and learning how to make the right investments to realise such benefits. To improve SER performance, companies are using a sense

Improvements in SER require integrated efforts between the operations and customer support teams, engineering and product development functions, and suppliers.

Figure 27: Future SER focus areas

Looking ahead, to what extent do you intend to focus your SER efforts in each of the following areas?


Immediate suppliers

Internal operations


Internal product design

Customers

25 602 13

27 572 14

31 513 14

35 502 13

41 442 12


Significantly reduce effort

Reduce effort

No change

Increase effort

Significantly increase effort

Lack of knowledge and expertise to pursue improvement projects


4: RISK MANAGEMENT

about this, with a further 43% “somewhat concerned” (see Figure 28). Those in the hi-tech sector see this as a particularly acute risk, with 4 out of 10 very concerned, compared with just 1 in 10 in the retail sector (which is more able to pass on the higher costs incurred in buying scarce commodities to its customers). And from a geographical standpoint, the proportion of respondents based in the Asia-Pacific region who are very concerned about supply shortages is double that of their peers in EMEA – 48% to 24%.

In a volatile and uncertain global economy it is no surprise that the risk of supply shortages should be front of mind for supply chain executives. Strong demand in fast-developing countries such as China in recent years has placed enormous strain on the supplies of some commodities, such as steel, although there are signs that these pressures are easing as growth in these emerging markets slows. And, of course, supply shortages are also a function of natural disasters and man-made incidents such as fires and strikes. Last year’s events in Japan and Thailand halted production at many factories and led to shortages of items such as lithium ion batteries, LCD displays, automotive components and food products.

For John Haydon, chief supply officer at electronics giant Philips, these events exposed the fact that few companies really understand the lower tiers of their supply chains (suppliers at levels 2, 3 and 4). In Philips’ case, he explains, the impact of Japan’s earthquake and tsunami was much greater than might have been expected by looking at the sourcing data – just $50 million out of his $14 billion annual procurement budget spent directly with Japanese tier 1 suppliers.

Understanding where suppliers are sourcing their components and raw materials is one area where CSCOs need to drill deeper, says Haydon. But so too is knowing which other major customers your suppliers are serving, and ideally which are likely to get the highest priority in the event of supply shortages.

As an organisational discipline and capability, risk management has come a long way in the past decade or so. Major, and highly visible, global events such as the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and floods in Thailand in 2011 have shown that a greater level of focus and professionalism can pay handsome dividends when disaster strikes, in terms of keeping production lines running, shelves stocked and customers and shareholders happy – as evidenced earlier in this report. And yet risk management remains an extremely challenging area for many supply chain leaders.

In this year’s CSCO survey, we posed four key questions: What are the risks you are most concerned about? How does your organisation go about identifying its potential exposure to these risks? What strategies and tactics have you adopted to mitigate them? And – perhaps most importantly – what negative impact, if any, have disruptions on both the supply and demand sides had on your business?

SUPPLY SHORTAGES TOP THE RISK LIST

Asked about risks they are concerned about in the next 12 months, survey respondents cite shortages of raw materials and components as the most significant. A third say they are “very concerned”

319

Figure 28: Most significant risksHow concerned are you about the following risks within your supply and demand chains in 2012-13?

Neither

Somewhat concerned

Very concernedNot at all concerned

Somewhat unconcerned

Supply shortage of raw materials / components

Shipping / logistics disruptions

Incident at supplier facilities (e.g., fire, strike, technical problems)

Natural disaster affecting supplier facilities (e.g., earthquake, flood)

Financial failure of critical supplier

Legal/regulatory issues (e.g., trade policy, tax laws)

Inability of customer to fulfil production/sales targets

Financial failure of critical customer

Counterfeit products

Data security / IT incidents

Breach of intellectual property rights

Supplier ethical standards exposed as unsatisfactory

War, terrorism or other geopolitical issues

7 16 43 32

7 20 48 23

8 50 1920

9 44 2319

3

2

3

6

9 42 25213

8 40 26242

7 46 19243

11 38 21236

10 32 26257

11 36 20293

11 30 23316

14 33 16316

14 31 15329

% of respondentsn=1,312Note: Figures may not add up

to 100 because of rounding


Incidents affecting supplier facilities are third and fourth in our risk ranking overall, behind shipping disruptions, with more than two-thirds of respondents expressing concern about the potential impact these could have on their value chains. The financial failure of critical suppliers – an issue that took centre stage for many companies when the 2008-09 recession hit – completes the top 5. As with supply shortages, respondents working in hi-tech firms have higher-than-average concerns about all of these risks, while those in retail and chemicals appear to be the least worried. And those located in Asia express higher levels of concern than their counterparts in either Europe or North America.

The risks that most exercise CSCOs after supply shortages, however, are legal/regulatory issues and counterfeit products. More than a quarter are very concerned about both. Perhaps not surprisingly, given their push into emerging market countries such as China and growing competition from local rivals, it is consumer goods, healthcare and pharmaceutical firms that express the greatest concerns both about their products being ripped off and red tape negatively impacting their ability to compete effectively.

At the other end of the spectrum, geopolitical issues (including war and terrorist attacks) generate the least concern. But this is a relative statement – just under half (46%) of respondents are concerned to some extent, compared with just under a quarter who are not concerned and a third who are neutral. And this is one of only two types of risk (the other being supplier ethical standards) that dip below the 50% mark. So there are many sources of risk that organisations need to mitigate and manage to ensure that their value chains function as smoothly as possible.

MITIGATING RISK THROUGH SUPPLIER DIALOGUE

So what techniques are companies using to identify potential risks? Figure 29 shows that better/more frequent communication with suppliers is top of the list, with two-thirds using

Last year’s disasters in Japan and Thailand exposed the fact that few companies really understand the lower tiers of their supply chains.

this as a channel. The risk of critical suppliers going out of business in the past few years has prompted many customers to step up their dialogue, rather than rely on classic sources of information such as financial statements, which can often be woefully out of date. Alongside this, the growth of supplier relationship management (SRM) programmes has encouraged business partners to share and discuss risk issues more openly – a trend that is to be applauded.

However, the average hides some wide disparities between industry sectors and regions. Seven out of 10 respondents in hi-tech firms say they tap suppliers for information, compared with just a quarter of those in retail. And 73% based in the Americas take this approach, versus just 55% in Asia and Australia (EMEA is in between on 63%). Retailers also rely more heavily on intuition or management insight – a more traditional approach – than other sectors, with 43% using it compared with just 27% in logistics/distribution and chemicals firms, for example.

Scott Murphy, vice-president of global supply chain at US-based retailer Dunkin’ Donuts, explains this by pointing out that intuition is often good enough to answer key questions such as “will these donuts rise enough” or “will they

RISK MANAGEMENT

Figure 29: Methods for identifying potential risks

What techniques does your company use to identify its exposure to

potential supply or demand chain risks?

Better/more frequent communication with suppliers

Supply chain risk mapping

Business impact analysis

Scenario planning

Third-party research / intelligence

Quantified risk analysis

Intuition or management insight

Better/more frequent communication with customers

Failure mode & effect analysis

Hazard & operability studies

Sentiment analysis (i.e., monitoring social media)

11

23

34

36

40

41

46

54

62

63

65



look good on our shelves”? Whereas for hi-tech firms, he suggests, a greater level of precision is generally required.

The other primary methods of identifying risk are the more formal and structured tools of supply chain risk mapping (63% of respondents), business impact analysis (62%) and scenario planning (54%). Supply chain risk mapping – a visual approach to pinpointing key geographic and relationship dependencies – is most popular among healthcare and pharmaceutical firms; while business impact analysis (a method of differentiating critical and non-critical activities) and scenario planning (a long-term, strategic assessment of various “what ifs?”) are most widely used by CPG firms and least used by industrial firms, according to our data.

Dunkin’ Donuts started using scenario planning this year, explains Murphy, as a response to what he describes as “a heightened sense of priority” on risk management, and commodity price volatility in particular. Scenarios considered so far include the impact of a massive drought across the US – work that has proved useful given the wheat shortages experienced there this past summer, which prompted a 43% rise in the spot

market price. “We have to be able to react much quicker than in the past,” he says.

A much newer method of identifying risks before they happen (and potentially inflict damage) is sentiment analysis. This uses software to track and assess postings made on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook according to the strength of positive or negative views expressed. In theory, this could be a useful early warning signal in terms of detecting, say, troubled customers or suppliers, politically unstable hotspots or the likelihood of new regulations becoming law.

As Figure 29 shows, just 11% of our survey respondents say they are using sentiment analysis at present. Companies operating in the business-to-consumer realm – notably, those manufacturing food and beverages, household and personal care products, and hi-tech gadgets – are more likely to be using sentiment analysis to identify risks than those in the business-to-business domain. This can be partly explained by the fact that these firms, their products and their supply chains are the subject of more extensive discussion in social media forums – and hence there is a larger and more frequently updated body of data to analyse.

However, as we saw in the earlier section on digital consumers and e-commerce, practitioners expect the usefulness of social media to grow significantly in the next few years, including in B2B supply chains. Almost half of respondents in the industrial sector believe that social media will provide advance warning of potential supply disruptions, for example, compared with the all-sector average of 41%. So the likelihood is that tools such as sentiment analysis will become much more widely used in future.

PUTTING FEWER EGGS IN THE SOURCING BASKET

Getting better visibility of potential risks and assessing their significance is a vital component of any risk management initiative. But the debate then becomes one of which strategies and tactics

RISK MANAGEMENT

7

7

3

6

253

2

3

6

7

3

6

166

31159

Figure 30: Risk management approaches

What strategies and tactics has your company adopted to mitigate the impact of potential supply or demand chain risks?

Dual or multiple sourcing of key materials/components/products

Conduct regular audits of key suppliers

Hold safety stocks of key materials/components/products

Implement performance-based contracts with key suppliers

Implement & test business continuity plans internally

Establish risk registers/reporting/governance

Expand into new/undeveloped markets

Evaluate business continuity plans of key suppliers

Diversify customer base/product range

Maintain spare in-house production capacity

Negotiate mutual aid contingency plans (e.g., with competitors, distributors) to

maintain supply in a crisis situation

Purchase supply chain risk insurance

77

66

65

49

47

44

35

33

33

32

20

13% of respondentsn=1,285


THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISRUPTION

Here, the evidence from our survey is pretty unequivocal: disruptions usually result in damage of one kind or another. Just 15-16% say their organisations have not been affected during the past two years. Loss of revenue is the most significant consequence – almost half of respondents say their organisations have suffered this as a result of both supply-side and demand-side disruptions. Lower profits are the second most likely effect of the latter, with 39% reporting a negative impact (see Figure 31).

On these two key measures of financial performance, the chemicals firms again top the list of affected sectors. Almost 6 out of 10 report a negative impact on sales revenue from both supply-side and demand-side disruptions, while more than 4 out of 10 say profits have been hit.

On the supplier side, meanwhile, the second major consequence of disruptive events (at 44%, just one percentage point behind loss of revenue) is delays to new products, projects or growth plans. Almost half of respondents in the industrial sector say their companies have

to deploy in an effort to mitigate their likely impact. Our research shows that supply-side levers are the most widely used. Chief among these by some margin is dual or multi-sourcing of key materials, components and products – a strategy favoured by more than three-quarters of respondents (see Figure 30).

Set against a backdrop of fears about supply shortages and the financial health of key suppliers, this is an understandable response, albeit one that is not always as carefully planned as it ought to be (witness the hi-tech firms affected by the Thai floods last year, for example, which discovered that their alternative suppliers were based in the same geographic area).

Companies in the chemicals sector are the most likely to use dual or multi-sourcing to mitigate risk, with 94% doing so. The same is true on holding safety stocks – the third most adopted tactic – where 82% of chemicals practitioners say they do this compared with an all-sector average of 65%. Chemicals firms also use regular audits of key suppliers more often than most sectors, albeit slightly less than those in healthcare, pharmaceuticals and food & beverages.

Interestingly, the chemicals sector also leads the use of demand-side levers, in terms of diversifying their customer base and product range, and expanding into new markets. This is no doubt due in part to the significant level of demand volatility and business uncertainty that has characterised this sector of late. But the fact that chemicals companies appear to be using a wide range of proactive tools (and just 3% rely on the fallback option of risk insurance) may also be a response to the damage they have suffered as a result of risks becoming reality.

“Chief supply chain officers need a more structured and disciplined approach to managing risk,” says Philips CSCO John Haydon. “Risk will continue to move up our agenda and you’ve got to be on top of your game.”

The likelihood is that newer tools for identifying and monitoring risk, such as sentiment analysis, will become much more widely used in future.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Figure 31: The impact of disruptions

Which of the following consequences, if any, has your company suffered during the past two years as a direct result of supply-side and/or demand-side disruptions?

Loss of sales/revenue

Lower profits

Delays to new projects/product introduction/growth plans

Loss of customers

Damage to image, reputation or brand

Lower share price

Failure to meet legal or regulatory requirements

Higher cost of capital

None 16

13

14

34

19

27

41

19

44

62

35

45

Supply-side disruption

Demand-side disruption

15

8

19

16

14

33

28

39

47



been affected by this, compared with less than a third of those in logistics and distribution. But the latter’s good fortune here is counterbalanced by the fact that a higher than average proportion (39%) say they have lost customers as a result of demand-side disruptions.

Although participants were not asked to put hard numbers against these losses, it is fair to assume that, with half of the sample working for companies with more than $5 billion in annual turnover, they are not trivial.

One other observation worth making is that, despite all the headlines they generate, less than a fifth of survey respondents say their organisations have suffered damage to their brand or reputation in the past two years. Those in healthcare and pharmaceutical firms top the sector list, with 27% saying supply-side disruptions have had a negative impact. Counterfeit products are a particular problem, which explains why concern about this type of risk is highest in these sectors, as we saw earlier in this section. The World Health Organisation reckons that in some markets half of all the drugs sold are fakes.

The financial knock-on effects of this are significant – estimates put the losses to established pharmaceutical companies in the tens of billions of dollars a year. But other examples such as BP with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill or, more recently, the security firm G4S’s failure to provide sufficient personnel for the Olympic Games in London (for which it has already taken an $80 million charge) serve as reminders that a failure to adequately manage risk can have devastating consequences. And supply chain professionals are on the front line.

RISK MANAGEMENT


For the second straight year our research has probed the topic of talent management in supply chain. Concern persists among senior leaders about the gap between the amount and type of skill needed to operate today’s supply chain and what is available in the market. In last year’s survey we looked at which associations offered valuable skill development (APICS – the Association for Operations Management – the Supply Chain Council and the Institute for Supply Management were top), which universities provided strong recruits (Stanford, MIT and Michigan State led) and which consulting firms’ alumni were worth hiring (Accenture, McKinsey). Most, however, agreed that new hires from industry were best qualified overall and this means poaching talent from each other.

Another topic we studied last year was what specific types of skill were most important to the job. Traditional disciplines such as planning (85% consider this essential), logistics (77%) and sourcing (69%) were deemed most important. Many, however, also considered a number of enabling skills to be nearly as critical (performance management was essential to 81% and change management to 76%). Our Executive Advisory Board felt that much of this information was unlikely to change significantly from one year to the next and so these questions were not asked in 2012.

The takeaway then, which we assume remains valid as a basis for planning now, is that technical supply chain skills are not enough. Talent requirements include many of the same business skills needed to succeed in roles such as sales or finance. Supply chain does not exist merely to serve the business, but instead is integral to the business.

For 2012 we repeated a couple of questions from 2011 to begin developing a time series view. The repeat questions were around what elements of talent management are most challenging and what hurts most when talented people leave. As we’ll see below, the data for 2012 shows some worsening of the talent problem across the

Technical supply chain skills are not enough. Talent requirements include many of the same business skills needed to succeed in roles such as sales or finance.

5: TALENT MANAGEMENT

board. New questions this year were designed to better understand the talent management issue globally, including a specific question on staffing concerns in China as well as country-by-country assessments of “best value for money” and “biggest risk” talent markets. The data casts doubt on the oversimplified notion of low-cost country sourcing as a sure bet to cut costs. Talent management in the global supply chain of 2012 is more complex and subtle than ever.

TALENT CHALLENGES ARE BECOMING MORE SEVERE

Building and managing a team in today’s global supply chain occupies a huge share of senior leaders’ time and accounts for much of their angst. The problem is not as simple as plugging brains into the right slots and letting them run. Compared to building a sales team, for instance, which generally operates as a collection of individual producers supported by a common infrastructure, supply chain organisations are deeply interdependent, with each function (plan, source, make, deliver) affecting the success of all the others. To make matters worse, most young people entering careers still have little awareness of supply chain as a profession.

Figure 32: Knowledge worker challenges

Finding talent

Hiring talent

Career progression

Developing talent

Relocating talent^

Retaining talent

Measuring talent

% of respondents saying somewhat/extremely challenging^Not included in 2011n=1,302

2012

2011

8362

7750

6666

6650

6350

55

4740


Across the lifecycle of talent management much of the pain is still at the front end – finding and hiring talent. These tasks have gotten substantially tougher since last year, now ranking decisively as the top two problems leaders face (see Figure 32). Also more challenging in 2012 than in 2011 are retaining talent, developing skills among existing staff, and even measuring and differentiating talent among staff.

It is likely that improving economic conditions have contributed to a tightening in the talent market for supply chain roles over the past year. Considering that global economic growth remains stuck in a relatively low gear, however, it should be worrying that by an overwhelming 17:1 ratio our 1,385 survey participants feel that finding talent is very challenging. What happens when business starts to boom again?

The only area in which we saw meaningful improvement from last year was “offering staff a compelling career progression” – the top pain point in last year’s survey. Although two-thirds of respondents in both 2011 and 2012 say this is challenging, the proportion saying “extremely challenging” fell from 25% to 18% year on year. This shift probably reflects a concerted

effort from the top to cultivate future leaders. Career progression is especially susceptible to committed effort by the senior supply chain executives who care about retaining their best people and are willing to lay out the details of how to get ahead. Leadership here at least is already making a difference.

When data for this question are cut by industry we see little variation in the rank order of which talent management tasks are most challenging. Food & beverage respondents seem to feel the greatest pain in finding talent, perhaps because of the increasing focus in that sector on food safety compliance. In fact, the Coca-Cola Company recently partnered with Michigan State University specifically to improve its capabilities here.

The data also shows a somewhat surprising result in hi tech where finding talent, although still the top overall challenge, is actually perceived to be less severe than in other sectors. Anecdotal evidence suggests that talent searches in hi tech are advantaged somewhat by an active network of existing professionals who know who to ask for referrals. Also noteworthy is the high score retailers give to the challenge of offering a compelling career progression. Other research SCM World has conducted in the past year may shed some light here, as it appears this sector is still wrestling with how supply chain interacts with other retail-specific functions such as merchandising and store operations.

Viewing talent management challenges by geography shows that finding talent is problematic everywhere, but that retaining it is especially difficult in Asia. Much of the poaching that goes on appears to happen in Asia. This finding confirms other data in this survey which indicates that talent markets in the region, especially China, are rich with technical and even business knowledge, but that they are very high risk and, for many, represent worse value for money than traditional, high-cost labour markets, especially the United States.

Figure 33: Talent management challenges by industry

TALENT MANAGEMENT

Chemicals Industrial CPGFood & Beverage

Hi TechHealthcare & Pharma

RetailLogistics & Distribution

Finding talent

Hiring talent

Developing talent

Relocating talent

Measuring talent

Career progression

Retaining talent

n=1,302

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50


Wei

ghte

d av

erag

e ra

ting*


fewer concerns about product IP, probably reflecting the relative lack of manufacturing in the business for most. Hi-tech businesses suffer most overall from all worries borne of lost talent, while CPG suffers least. Hi tech’s volatile environment and active talent market likely explain the sector’s problems, while CPG supply chains may benefit from a stable and sophisticated view of the function at the board level. Leading CPG companies (Procter & Gamble, Unilever, PepsiCo, Clorox, etc) are relatively strategic in their approach to supply chain management and thus may have more mature succession and contingency planning already in place.

By geography, our data again shows higher levels of concern where growth is fastest – Asia, followed by the Americas, and last in Europe (see Figure 36). Europe probably also reflects some degree of greater labour market stability, supported in part by legal structures and in part by cultural traditions. A number of respondents also specified other concerns when talent is lost including negative impacts on the company’s reputation, lost or damaged relationships with key suppliers and adverse effects on morale among remaining staff.

VOLATILE TALENT MARKETS ARE HURTING OPERATIONS MORE IN 2012 THAN 2011

The problems associated with losing talented people start with the disruption of operations, but may include lasting impacts arising from deficits created around knowhow – both process and product. In aggregate, just over half of respondents in 2011 said retention of talent was either “somewhat” or “extremely” challenging. In 2012, this has risen to two-thirds. The ratio of those who have a retention problem against those who don’t is now 6:1, proving that recruiting talent from competitors is exploding. Accordingly, the level of concern associated with lost talent has also risen in the past year.

In 2011 the top concern overall was lost process intellectual property. A third of all respondents last year were “very concerned” about this problem and nearly 70% were at least “somewhat concerned” – more than any other issue. This year the emphasis has clearly shifted toward concerns about near-term impacts, especially “cost of transition to replacement” (two-thirds are at least somewhat concerned about this). Even “lost production”, which is the least vexing concern overall, nonetheless saw a big jump from 2011 to 2012 (see Figure 35).

These results could reflect an improved economy and less tolerance for production disruptions, but considering that we are nowhere near booming globally, one wonders whether such short-term impacts could become serious problems in the next two to three years. Talent retention initiatives may be worth starting now before the pressure builds.

Pain felt when talent is lost viewed by industry confirms the same rank order importance across all sectors. Chemicals companies notably fear production losses less than other industries, probably because of the asset-intensive manufacturing process. Retail has substantially

In 2011, just over half of respondents said retention of talent was ‘somewhat’ or ‘extremely’ challenging. In 2012, this has risen to two-thirds.

TALENT MANAGEMENT

Figure 34: Talent management challenges by location

Finding talent

Relocating talent

Career progression

Developing talent

Measuring talent

Hiring talent

Retaining talent


3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50


Wei

ghte

d av

erag

e ra

ting*


TALENT IN CHINA: NO LONGER A ‘LOW COST’ COUNTRY

In preparing this year’s survey, substantial input from our Executive Advisory Board drove us to look at the talent question specific to geographies known to be problematic. Chief among these, of course, is China. In last year’s survey an entire section was dedicated to globalisation and emerging markets. One of the most obvious spikes in the data was in the degree to which supply chain executives around the world rely on China for sourcing, manufacturing and even product design. What started many years ago as a move to tap cheap labour has since become a deeply symbiotic relationship between brand owners, retailers and other product creators and the technically sophisticated supply base of China.

These emerging markets are also now essential sources of demand and growth, meaning that “low-cost country sourcing” has nearly run its course. Markets are global for money, products and talent and China is at the centre of it all.

To test the question of whether talent problems are different here we asked respondents to rank their top concerns about knowledge workers in

China. At the bottom of the list overall were “lack of technical skills” and “lack of business skills”. Where once quality concerns, language barriers and competence may have been problematic it appears these issues are fading. To be fair, though, the ratio of respondents who were concerned against those who are unconcerned is still at least 2:1 in these areas, meaning that knowledge workers in China are not yet seen as the equal of those in, say, the United States or Germany (more of which below). But this is by no means the biggest talent challenge facing supply chain leaders.

The biggest challenges with knowledge workers in China instead reflect a tight pool for talent. The top concern, and by a ratio of 6:1, is rising costs, followed closely by poor retention (see Figure 38). The dynamic of the market for talent in China appears to be heavily influenced by poaching. Our data does not so much point to a limited talent pool (ranked joint third overall as a concern) as to a talent pool made up of people willing to be lured away from rivals for more money. As we’ll see below, this may translate into substantial risk for businesses which suffer high short-term costs of transition. In other words, betting on building a great, long-term supply chain team in China may not be so smart.

The biggest challenges

with knowledge workers in China

reflect a tight pool for talent.

The top concern is rising costs,

closely followed by poor retention.

TALENT MANAGEMENT

Figure 35: Impact of lost talent

Cost of transition

Lost process IP

Lost product IP

Lost production


2012

2011

7561

6669

5447

4931

Figure 36: Impact of lost talent by location


Lost production Lost process IP Cost of transitionLost product IP

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50


Wei

ghte

d av

erag

e ra

ting*

2011


As we saw earlier in this section, supply chain leaders consider the issue of relocating talent internationally, to countries such as China or Mexico, to be a relatively low-level concern. Anecdotal evidence, for instance from PC maker Lenovo, suggests that global leadership of a supply chain organisation can be assembled from all over the world, even on a Chinese foundation. China may be essential to most global supply chain strategic designs, but it need not, and probably should not, be strictly Chinese.

Industry cuts of the data confirm the overall rankings of where concerns are highest (see Figure 39). Hi tech predictably stands out as feeling these cost and retention problems worst, although industrial and chemicals businesses are not far behind. CPG and food & beverage are less exposed as naturally regional or even country-based supply chains, but retail, whose China sourcing strategies (think Wal-Mart) initiated much of the rush to low-cost country sourcing, seems to see a serious cost problem.

BANG FOR BUCK IN SUPPLY CHAIN TALENT? TRY THE US OR GERMANY

In an effort to understand how talent is valued by supply chain leaders holistically we asked two simple questions: where is the “best value for money” and where is the “biggest risk”? These questions were structured with a long list of countries to choose from and the instruction to rank the top five against each of the criteria. No explicit definition was offered for either “best value for money” or “biggest risk”, leaving respondents to use their judgment in making selections.

The results were somewhat surprising. We used an inverse point system (five points for a #1 rank, one point for a #5 rank) to grade the overall “best value” of each country included and found, by a wide margin, that the United States came out on top. In part this must reflect the size of the country, since the number of times the US was ranked anywhere was highest overall (880 respondents ranked the

TALENT MANAGEMENT

Figure 37: Impact of lost talent by sector

Chemical Healthcare & Pharma


Hi Tech CPG RetailLogistics & Distrib

Lost production

Lost process IP

Lost product IP

Cost of transition n=1,294

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50


Wei

ghte

d av

erag

e ra

ting*

Figure 38: Concerns about knowledge workers in China

Rising costs

Poor retention

Lack of business skills

Limited talent pool

Lack of technical skills

Other

8 27 507 9

9 29 434 15

10 27 445 14

14 32 435 7

12 31 428 8

17 31 3017

Not at all concerned

Somewhat unconcerned

Neither

Somewhat concerned

Very concerned

n=1,234Note: Figures may not add up to 100 because of rounding

4 25 36 288

6 30 33 229

9 33 35 1310

9 32 34 1411

12 34 32 1111

4 45 10 1032

2011

*1-5 scale, where above 3.00 = challenging% of respondents


US somewhere between #1 and #5). However, nearly as many (749) ranked China somewhere on the spectrum, but proportionally far more put it further down. Recalling data from last year’s survey also may help with context – 37% of respondents listed China as their number one sourcing location against only 20% who listed the US. In other words, the ranking does not only reflect size, but does capture at least some variation in perceived value.

After the US, Germany, India and China all saw substantial confidence from our respondents in terms of value for money. In the case of Germany, few would argue that these results reflect low costs. German employees are notoriously difficult to fire and far from low paid. They do, however, have a reputation for quality and reliability that appears to more than justify the higher costs. India, in contrast, scored worse than both China and Brazil in last year’s survey questions about risk and reliability, suggesting that costs there are low enough to put up with a few mishaps.

The implications of this data should not be over-interpreted. It does appear that supply chain leaders see good value for money in high-cost countries and are able to weigh the trade-

offs accordingly. It also seems that the rising costs in China referred to above have cut into its appeal. Given time series data on this question one might begin to see advance warning of geographies where talent bargains can be found, as well as those less worthy of new investment in permanent staff.

TALENT RISK: CHINA’S DARK SIDE

The results of our “value for money” question show China still scores well as a place to find talent, despite abundant evidence that costs are rising fast and in some regions (Shanghai, for instance) are no longer at all low. Where Chinese talent markets do pose a problem, however, is in terms of risk. Data discussed above shows a volatile market in which employers (or customers of closely tied contract manufacturers) must be vigilant about threats employees pose to business continuity, cost and intellectual property.

Turning to the top five “biggest risk” talent markets (where risk is not defined, but instead is meant to encompass any and all worries supply chain leaders have about talent in any given geography), the data in aggregate shows overwhelmingly that our respondents rank China as the riskiest. Again, scale matters – the US is the

Risk-averse supply chain

leaders would be wise to scrutinise

plans for new hiring in China before putting

too many eggs in one basket.

TALENT MANAGEMENT

Figure 39: Concerns about knowledge workers in China by sector

Chemicals Healthcare & Pharma


Hi Tech CPG RetailLogistics & Distribution

Limited talent pool

Lack of technical skills

Lack of business skills

Poor retention

Rising costs

n=1,172

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50


Wei

ghte

d av

erag

e ra

ting*

4


second biggest risk market with 560 individual respondents ranking it as one of their top five. For comparison, however, consider that whereas 166 individuals ranked the US as the number one biggest risk, 444 chose China for this distinction. Risk-averse supply chain leaders would be wise to scrutinise plans for new hiring in China before putting too many eggs in one basket.

Looking for stable, reliable talent pools in supply chain is one way to diversify away from some risk. Many global supply chain organisations are currently in the process of regionalising their structures. Often the primary goal is proximity to customers, but an added benefit is limitation of risk. Among the most appealing in terms of low talent risk is Germany, which is ninth overall on the risk dimension but second overall on value for money. The reverse is true for Mexico, which ranks near the bottom overall on value for money but near the top for risk.

It seems that in much the same way that risk mitigation strategies call for dual or multi-sourcing of supply, so too might organisational strategy benefit from a diverse talent pool.

TALENT MANAGEMENT

Figure 40: Best value talent markets

Germany

India

China

UK

Brazil

Eastern Europe

Japan

Singapore

Taiwan

Mexico

Netherlands

France

South Korea

2.61

2.13

2.12

2.11

2.01

1.89

1.82

1.77

1.60

1.59

1.58

1.55


US

1.41

1.38

Figure 41: Biggest risk talent markets

Germany

India

China

UK

Brazil

Eastern Europe

Japan

Singapore

Taiwan

Mexico

Netherlands

France

South Korea

2.98

2.11

2.05

2.03

1.98

1.74

1.72

1.72

1.69

1.66

1.59


US

1.58

1.22

1.60


“Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it,” goes an old saying. This little bit of wisdom says a lot about the times as captured in the 1,385 survey responses we tallied for this year’s Chief Supply Chain Officer Survey.

For a discipline accustomed to feeling underappreciated, the results of this year’s survey promise great things for the future. Senior business leadership appears not only to grasp the role supply chain plays in making money, but also increasingly to expect direct and unique contributions to everything from new product development to brand equity. The “new news” includes heightened awareness of the need for risk management as a core duty of the supply chain and a tightening of the vice on overall social and environmental responsibility. Where once such matters were seen as frills worthy of attention only after every box had been shipped and every penny had been pinched, now it seems the boss links these things to his or her personal success.

If accountability is on the rise, so too are the drivers of productivity in supply chain. Digital demand looks ready to force tremendous new levels of complexity upstream in the supply chain as consumers’ expectations inflate. The potential for deeper demand sensing and management implied with this digital revolution is exciting. Unfortunately, it appears that the component and material supply base may find itself playing catch-up in terms of manufacturing and distribution agility.

Perhaps most important, the deepening understanding of how supply chain operations pull specific levers to impact customers and profits means that innovation is now a necessity. Far from merely enabling the business, supply chain in many organisations today extends the envelope of competitive strategy with new business models or previously unimagined levels of performance.

A damper on this otherwise rosy outlook for the supply chain profession is, ironically, our own human capital. Finding and managing talent has been a sore point for some time now, but this year’s data suggests the problem is worsening. At one level it is apparent that global supply chain no longer means low-cost country sourcing with all the brains at headquarters. At another level it is clear that dependencies on key people have become too important. The bigger, more strategic role of supply chain seems to rest on too few shoulders, leaving organisations with less resilience than they need.

Looking ahead, supply chain strategists may feel an urgent need to consolidate some of the organisational power that has built up under the CSCO title before reaching for more. Expectations of our collective ability to handle the risks and responsibilities now assigned to supply chain could quickly outrun our skills. Credibility at the board level takes a long time to earn, but it could be lost quickly.

Supply chain strategists may feel an urgent need to consolidate some of the organisational power that has built up under the CSCO title before reaching for more.

CONCLUSIONS


ABOUT THE RESEARCH

This is the third annual Chief Supply Chain Officer Report published by SCM World. Invitations to complete an online survey were sent to corporate members of SCM World’s global community and to other supply chain, procurement, operations and relevant practitioners on our database in July 2012. In total, 1,385 completed responses were received during the two-week survey period and the key demographics of this sample are as follows.

Job level: Four out of 10 respondents are at senior executive,

vice president or director level, with just under half at manager

or head of department level.

47

14 8

32

SVP/EVP/Board

VP/Director

Manager/Head

Other


Job function: Almost half of respondents work in supply chain,

with 13% each in procurement and operations. Just under a

tenth are general managers.

Company size: In terms of revenue, half of the respondents

work for companies with more than $5bn in annual sales, with

another fifth in the $1bn-5bn bracket. Just under a fifth of the

sample did not disclose this information.

Location: An equal number of respondents are based in the

Americas and EMEA, with just under a quarter located in the

Asia-Pacific region.

Industry sector: Hi-tech, consumer goods and industrial

firms drew the largest number of respondents. The

healthcare/pharmaceutical, logistics and distribution, food

and beverage, chemicals and retail sectors also each had

at least 50 respondents and have been included in sector-

specific analysis throughout this report.

17

25

8

31


23

38

1

38

Europe, Middle East & Africa

Asia & Australia

North & South America

Rest of the World


Media & Telecommunications

Industrial

Hi Tech

Food & Beverage

Healthcare & Pharmaceutical

Chemicals

Automotive

Professional Services

Retail


Aerospace & Defence

Utilities & Energy

Agriculture & Mining

CPG

Construction & Engineering

Paper & Packaging

Fabric & Apparel

Software

25

18

10

8

7

7

5

4

3

3

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1% of respondentsn=1,385

19

Under $1bn

$1bn-$5bn

$5bn-$10bn

$10bn-$25bn

$25bn+

IT/IS/Technology

Procurement

Supply Chain

Engineering

General Management

Quality Assurance

Other

Finance

Manufacturing/Production

Operations

47

13

13

9

6

2

2

1

1

1

3

Transport & Distribution



SCM World, a RaptureWorld company, is the leading global community and think-tank for senior level supply chain executives. Hosting a dynamic and interactive annual programme of end-user and academic-led webinars, events and research projects for its members, SCM World is the de-facto benchmark for forward-thinking supply chain leaders and their global teams to stay current through cutting-edge content. Organisations from across multiple industry verticals use SCM World to further enhance supply chain learning and development, including the likes of HP, Nestlé, Tyco, RIM, Nike, GlaxoSmithKline, Cisco, Schneider Electric, Shell, Motorola, The Dow Chemical Co, BASF, Applied Materials and many more.

www.scmworld.com

Contact:Geraint JohnSenior Vice President, Research+44 (0) 20 7357 [email protected]

E2open is a leading provider of cloud-based, on-demand solutions enabling enterprises to procure, manufacture, sell, and distribute products more efficiently through collaborative execution across global trading networks. Brand owners use E2open solutions to gain visibility into and control over their trading networks through the real-time information, integrated business processes, and advanced analytics that E2open provides. E2open customers include Celestica, Cisco, Dell, Hitachi, IBM, L’Oréal, LSI, Motorola, Seagate, and Vodafone. E2open is headquartered in Foster City, California with operations worldwide. For more information, visit e2open.com.

REPORT SPONSOR

new the chief supply chain officer report 2012 · 2013. 1. 10. · world has published its annual...

Documents