Tweet

Are Multiple Supply Chain Networks Important? (A PI Q and A)

Written by: Jon Hansen

Article Overview: I recently posed a question on the importance of Multiple Supply Chain Networks which, within a matter of several hours, elicited 14 responses from around the world. And while the majority of respondents felt that the findings from an ISM, CAPS and AT Kearney 2006 report were not indicative of general market sentiments, it nonetheless has proven to be an issue that is of considerable interest to supply chain professionals and academics. As a result, over the next week I will share the answers as well as corresponding discussion tracks starting today with the response from a Senior Director Supply Chain Operations in the Apparel & Fashion Industry in the United States.

Are Multiple Supply Chain Networks Important? (A PI Q and A)

I recently posed a question on the importance of Multiple Supply Chain Networks which, within a matter of several hours, elicited 14 responses from around the world.

And while the majority of respondents felt that the findings from an ISM, CAPS and AT Kearney 2006 report were not indicative of general market sentiments, it nonetheless has proven to be an issue that is of considerable interest to supply chain professionals and academics.

As a result, over the next week I will share the answers as well as corresponding discussion tracks starting today with the response from a Senior Director Supply Chain Operations in the Apparel & Fashion Industry in the United States.

PI Question:

A 2006 Report titled Succeeding in a Dynamic World: Supply Management in the Decade Ahead made the following statement:

“Designing and operating multiple supply networks to meet the needs of specific market segments–supply chain innovation and the use of multiple supply chains will be important to future revenue and market share growth.”

Based on your own experience is this an accurate assessment? If yes, why? I f no, why?

Network Member Profile:

Senior Director Supply Chain Operations, Global Markets (Fasion & Apparel Industry), U.S.A.

Reader Response:

I agree.

Multiple and supple Supply Chains that can be adopted quickly mitigate the risk associated with global business. Absolutely!

Unanalyzed loyalty, or myopic reliance on a specific supply chain process or partnerships is less efficient for all products that a global business must produce to meet their growth demands; specifically, because, typically the chain is designed around either trying to meet all products needs (in the case of Apparel this is the biggest mistake we make- one chain for all brands), or geared towards one products exceptions (automotive innovation is the example here). This creates unneeded pathways that add time, cost, or non required testing or analytics to individual product demands.


In addition any global company is exposed to the speed in which governments are adopting and dropping restrictions or regulations and the growing socio-political instability of both the raw materials and manufacturing markets.

Multiple Supply chains that can be adopted quickly as contingency routs or sustained individuated paths allow a company to respond to their consumers’ ever increasing demand for quality and cost. Ask GM, Dog food makers or Mattel.

PI Follow-up Question:

Interesting observation.

In the example of Mattel specifically, (and I assuming you are talking about the recent spate of product recalls), how do you believe the Multiple Supply Chain concept could have averted the situation?

Reader Response:

I believe what happens with “ancient” or “loyal” (older than 5 years) Supply paths is that the company becomes more and more reliant on the partnerships that make up the path Each person in the system becomes somewhat lazy (if you will) the vendors, product auditors etc. realize their relationship is exclusive or critical to the company and either take risks or loose focus.

Having multiple supply chains forces “free market’ competition, provides the Company with contingency so they take a hard stance on quality, or push for better costs, allows for spontaneous freshening of the Supply Base, and worst case allows a company to make an immediate change when a problem is identified. If double digit percentage of your product is traveling through one set of partnerships there’s too much risk involved in changing A single supplier or a single path- they have deals with your other partners based on sustained volume, or legacy relationships, your cost structure is built on those relationships, your speed to market metrics are modeled against those paths. I believe what happens is it’s easier to make concessions because the risk of holding fast to product integrity standards is greater than the risk of bad quality. Until, of course, it’s too late. I think that’s the flaw of the chain not some large corrupt entity making planned obsolescence, or calculated risk, decisions.

A simpler example of this is with moving finished product. Having one exclusive contracted relationship limits you to certain lanes, ports and sail times. Having multiple relationships, or at the very least creating a relationship with a broker who manages those rapid switches allows for flexibility, adding time back into the Manufacturing calendar or back into the sales cycle, which in some cases may be more pennies per product but the time saved factor makes it more cost effective.

Managing multiple chains, on-boarding new paths, grafting new sources to existing branches, or amputating chains that are not working should be a constant focus even if you make ball-bearings it’s the only way a company can stay competitive.

PI Follow-up Question/Closing Commentary:

Are you saying that the Mattel situation was the result of attempting to balance the convenience or comfort of dealing with a known entity versus the potential risks associated with the lowering of standards?

PI Commentary:

While Mattel undoubtedly recognized that this created potential risks in terms of product quality, it was a calculated risk that under the circumstances they were willing to take. Unfortunately it came back to bite them, as the risk of delivering an inferior product in this instance was greater than a) maintaining the previously established standards which presumably would have prevented the inferior product from being shipped in the first place and/or, b) having to go through the process of establishing alternative supply channels.

The questions this raises are as follows:

1. Were Mattel’s options to develop an “alternative” supply channel limited as a result of indigenous factors? For example, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill uses coal to meet their energy requirements. The primary delivery mechanism for coal is rail for a variety of reasons including the prohibitive costs associated with other modes of transportation such as ground. Unfortunately, the options relative to the selection of alternative rail carriers is severely restricted, thereby forcing UNC to accept pricing increases they may not otherwise have agreed to had there been viable options available.

A similar scenario existed with Abbott Laboratories as their (pill) bottle manufacturer who, after informing them that there was going to be a per unit price increase, refused to let Abbott “stock-up” under the outgoing cost model. Abbott’s hands were tied in that the range of potential suppliers that can provide the required product is relatively narrow. I refer to this as a “forced” strategic alliance.

2. Alternatively, was the Mattel supply chain hierarchy’s decision to lessen quality standards linked primarily to the desire to maintain the status quo (re comfort) thereby potentially clouding their judgment in terms of the true level of risk relative to poor quality? And if this is in fact the case, was there supporting data (re a history model etc.) which would have at least helped to clearly identify a “reduced” risk therefore justifying their decision? This is a “self-inflicted” alliance.

These are important questions, especially in the area of cluster development on both a domestic as well as international basis. Especially when recent studies suggest that particular regions of the world will develop core cluster competencies that are not likely to be available elsewhere.

Related Articles
  Are Multiple Supply Chains Important Survey Response 2
  Are Multiple Supply Chains Important (Survey Response 4)
  Are Multiple Supply Chain Networks Important? (A PI Q and A) Track No. 2
  Are Multiple Supply Chains Important Survey Response 3
  What is the Value in your Supply Chain A PI Q and A

Article Tags: accurate assessment, apparel fashion, apparel industry, automotive innovation, dynamic world, fashion industry, global markets, growth demands, market segments, market sentiments, market share growth, network member, product demands, reader response, supply chain innovation, supply chain networks, supply chain operations, supply chains, supply management, supply networks



Related Forum Posts
Women Entrepreneur Tips - Thank you LeoOliveros, I found #4 particularly true in my case: 4. The Enterprise Must Include the Power of Power Networks. As a conductor of your own enterprise, you can not see yourself as a one-woman-show. You must choose to utilize the power people in your life, by asking for help when you need it, and effectively delegating in order to capitalize on your strengths and that of your power network. When certain experts are not represented in your power network, you must actively seek advisors or mentors and develop a team of specialists, so the benefits are received by everyone involved in the power network - the true Power of Power Networks.
Re: What works for you? - Hi Yinka, I work better under pressure of deadlines when I am doing something for other people. However, I like to have the leisure to develop my own projects. The first case is what Stephen Covey calls a "Quadrant 1" activity ("Important and urgent") whereas the second case is a "Quadrant 2" activity ("Important, not urgent"). We should aim to make as much time as possible for Q2 activities so that we can develop our own projects. Easier said than done!
Seek Venture Capital & Funding - Hello, Greetings from India. I am Seeking Venture Capital for Offshore Software Company Start-up. Need advise along with Business Model Sample. I have a basic outline for an offshore company. 1. Technology - like Microsoft Dot Net, Java, LAMP 2. Talent Team - Found Good Technology Developers. 3. Where I can get the leads/potential customers - Leads have been identified who are willing to move forward offshore projects. 4. I do not have resources like funding. It is a very critical factor to me Industries: Manufacturing, Real Estate, Retail, Insurance, Distribution & Logistics, Healthcare, Industry Associations and Software Product Development, Agricultural Industries and Etc. Services: Offshore Software Development Company. Offices to be located: Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India and USA. Products/Services/Applications in areas like POS & Billing, Sales & Distribution, Production Planning, Material Management, Inventory Control, Plant Maintenance, Purchasing, Accounting and Logistics. Dynamic Web Programming with Database Driven Content Management Systems, Online Stores for E-Commerce, B2B Solutions, Community Portals, Website Redesign and Development, Custom ERP with Enterprise Wide Functional Modules such as Marketing, CRM, Accounting, Inventory Control, Sales & Distribution, Production Planning, Purchase & Stores, Logistics and Supply Chain. Seek your further questions and help. Thank you, Best Regards, Jayapratap.
Re: Bad SEO techniques? - [quote="jacksonp":1y3g8bot]that is quite true.We all should avoid these kind of techniques.I am here sharing few more points which we should take in mind..As an experienced person of SEO I want to share here some facts which should be avoided by us.I hope that these will help some of the newcomers a lot.. Choosing a title that has no relation to the content on the page Using extremely lengthy titles that are unhelpful to users Using a single title tag across all of your site’s pages or a large group of pages Stuffing unneeded keywords in your title tags Writing description meta tag that has no relation to the content on the page Multiple domains Multiple identical sites Cross Linking[/quote:1y3g8bot] re: Cross Linking, how do you define that? I thought linking to other pages on your website (that are related) was a good thing...maybe that's not what you meant.
An "Easy Button" - In the US, Staples Office Supply company has a commercial that features an easy button. The idea is that when you have a difficult task, you hit the easy button and the task is easier. Staples is saying that they make it easier. But, my question is, what would you use an "easy button" for?? Chris


Share this article with your friends. Fund someone's dream.

Leave a comment below or share on the left and you'll help support entrepreneurs in Africa through our partnership with Kiva. Over $50,000 raised and counting - Please keep sharing! Learn more.

Tweet

Newsletter

Get advice & tips from famous business
owners, new articles by entrepreneur
experts, my latest website updates, &
special sneak peaks at what's to come!

Name:
Email:

Popular Articles

Work at Home Moms and Their Bad Rap?

E Mail Marketing Campaigns

Reverse Mentoring

Suggestions

Email us your ideas on how to make our
website more valuable! Thank you Sharon
from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for
your suggestions to make the newsletter
look like the website and profile younger
entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez.