Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Crocs: Building Flexible Supply Chains


Last week’s article from The McKinsey Quarterly focused on the importance of a flexible supply chain in uncertain economic times. Because of the drop in demand and output, several companies have had to cut prices by almost 50%.[1] Challenges associated with forecasting customer demand have reinforced the importance of flexible supply chains. One such company that revolutionized the footwear supply chain is Crocs. Over the years, they have developed a flexible supply chain model with a focus on customer needs.

The founders of Crocs first purchased the external manufacturing company (formerly called as Foam Creations) that was in-charge of production. This ensured that Crocs owned the trademarked croslite resin manufacturing facility—this also gave Crocs he ability to alter volume produces based on customer needs. Crocs maintained their raw material supply chain, which was based in different countries. Raw materials from these suppliers were compounded (put-together) by an Italian company. In order to ensure a smooth transition after acquiring the manufacturing facility, Crocs maintained their dealings with this third-party Italian company. Raw materials compounded in this Italian company were then shipped to Crocs’ manufacturing unit in Canada—shoes were assembled here. The final products were then shipped to a third-party distributor (in-charge of the warehouse) who was responsible for delivering consignments to retailers.[2]

After a few years of functioning as a single manufacturing unit, in early 2005, Crocs expanded to China by collaborating with a large contract manufacturer. Raw materials compounded in Italy were now being sent to two manufacturing locations: China and Canada. By the end of 2005, Crocs had entered both Asian and European markets, and were slowly expanding worldwide. In countries where companies were unable to conform to Crocs’ supply chain model, new Crocs owned manufacturing operations were built to meet the needs of customers in that region. Crocs use of contract manufacturers was a key component of its flexible supply chain. Contract manufacturers were very sensitive to customer demand and could start or stop production based on customer needs. Having these manufacturers in their supply chain helped Crocs’ bring in flexibility in the volume of products being manufactured.[3]

Once the manufacturing was set up, in 2006, Crocs shifted its focus on compounding raw materials. It created three compounding facilities in three of its major markets: Canada, China and Mexico. Now, instead of depending on one Italian compounder for raw materials, Crocs had three options to fall back on. Also, the proximity of the compounding facilities to production units enabled Crocs to delay the colorizing decision—this ensured that raw materials were colorized based on the current customer need for a product. This helped Crocs to address customer demand and decrease the chances of retailers having to deal with left-over/unsold product. [4]

Lastly, Crocs changed its warehousing model to increase supply chain flexibility. Crocs original supply chain model had one distributor. All products from different manufacturing units were collected and processed in one facility in Colorado. To make this process more efficient, Crocs added warehouses to each manufacturing facility. Products were shipped to retailers directly from these warehouses and were depended on the warehouse’s distance from these manufacturing units. This cut the time involved in shipping and delivering products to retailers and other customers.

Despite having built a flexible supply chain, in 2009 Crocs reported a net loss of almost $22 million.[5] Crocs’ flexible supply chain model, was not robust enough to handle large downswings in product demand, which happened after the economic collapse. This leads to a question: Is an “optimized” supply chain network, for cost or responsiveness, robust enough?


[1] Glatzel, C., Helmcke, S., & Wine, J., Building a flexible supply chain for uncertain times, The McKinsey Quarterly, March 2009.
[2] Stanford Graduate School of Business, Crocs: Revolutionizing a company’s supply chain model for competitive advantage, June 2007,  p.6, https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/0/?ui=2&ik=638c68d379&view=att&th=13ca7df1da3ebecc&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=1426090767883960320-1&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P9LGl-zrL7RnIR8-lygvaT8&sadet=1360031659485&sads=R0za_7XW47sNdHICc2PHnjv0KbY&sadssc=1.
[3] Stanford Graduate School of Business, p7.
[4] Stanford Graduate School of Business, p. 8.
[5] Gonzales, Adrian., Crocs: From Revolutionary Supply Chain to Almost Bankrupt, Logistics Viewepoints, June 22, 2009, http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/06/22/crocs-from-revolutionary-supply-chain-to-almost-bankrupt/.

Demand Driven Supply Chain: No more the Holy Grail of Operations Management.


The article “Cleaning the Crystal Ball” discusses about the necessity to establish a clear forecasting mechanism to be able to plan the operations in a particular direction. The reason for forecast year after year even though they happen to be incorrect is that they lend direction in an otherwise intuition driven decision making. Now that at least we have a solid inference drawn from data analysis to base and evaluate our intuition driven decisions.

Though there is no denying in that the forecast mechanisms have to develop before they can be claimed dependable, the maturity levels attained now would be of better use if we could integrate forecasting and data analysis to the inputs of a company’s quarter on quarter strategy planning. Most companies fail to derive the complete benefits of forecasting. Objective forecasting to arrive at one or range of numbers is parallel to choosing to walk with one eye when all one has to do is open the other eye for better visibility.

No one model can actually yield best results for all the organizations. The forecasting models have to be developed from within the organization by incorporating the error quotient and monitoring the forecast against the actual results. Incorporating more factors that were not considered earlier would strengthen the forecast mechanism though at the cost of complexity. Demand forecasting in most cases leaves the team with a range of numbers. They sometimes make people see patterns that could have otherwise escaped the minds engrossed in other directions. There are reasons for this distribution of numbers, rather than focusing on the demerits and complaining about the flaws in forecast and one could benefit by accepting that the forecasting mechanism is yet to reach a level of maturity and focusing on
  •    What factors influence the range positively/negatively?
  •     What factors are most sensitive to output?
  •     What drivers can we control/monitor to adapt to the situation?
  •     What are the key indicators for us to focus on to reaffirm our strategic position every week (or     month)?
  •     How would my cash flow look like at each of these ranges?
  •     Establishing a contingency plan for threats that are assigned priority after both qualitative and quantitative analysis.


Besides all this, a company can somehow get to form a team with people from various domains like the Sales, Supply Chain Management, Marketing and Strategy planning and establish an agile process in place to help the suppliers and manufacturers cut down the response time taken. This could effectively save a lot of inventory cost and waste especially in the Consumable Goods Industry. While it could even take decades for the forecast models to reach the expected levels of accuracy, the companies that take leverage of the existing advantages of forecasting would have a strategically competitive position and less things to catch-up later when the model matures. It is interesting to realize how the article “Four Steps to Forecast Total Market Demand” starts emphasizing the importance of the byproducts of forecasting and sort of resonates with our discussion thus far.
It would be interesting to ask ourselves “Shouldn’t companies focus on deriving best out of existing provisions to continuously adapt as the forecast model develops?”

Article to Check
http://hbr.org/1988/07/four-steps-to-forecast-total-market-demand/ar/1

Lean software development: a concept born of lean manufacturing


What is lean software development?


The concepts of the lean manufacturing are applied for various kinds of domains like lean supply chain, lean enterprise, lean solutions, and lean consumption. Recently, lean software development becomes popular in the IT industry[2]. The book of the same name was written by Mary Poppendieck and Tom Poppendieck in 2003[3]. The most famous methodology of lean software development is agile software development that is based on iterative and incremental development in a short term, wherein requirements and solutions evolve through team-collaborations[4]. For example, in agile software development, a small group comprising 3-5 members develops software quickly by trial and error. Reflecting the reactions from customers and repeating this short-term development process, the developing software reaches the client’s ideal. 



The book: Lean Software Development
 
Source:Lean Software Development[5]


The major similarities between lean manufacturing and lean software development are as follows[1].

  • An aim to streamline processes
  • A customer-focused concept
  • A rapid responses to change

What kinds of projects are suitable for lean software development?


In my eight-year work experience as a system engineer, lean software development projects had characteristics in common. First of all, a project consisted of a few team members. Secondly, each member could play multiple roles such as a programmer, a system engineer, and a project manager. Thirdly, a project adopted a novel technology. Finally, a project was new for a client. One of the examples is that a team in my division developed the new global recipe management system for a Japanese chemical company five years ago. It was a quite new attempt because no one had developed this kind of system in Japan so far. In this project, while well-formatted documents were not used for communication between the development team and the client, proto-type systems and rough instruction documents like help manual were utilized. This approach accomplished the perfect system for the client quickly, eliminating inefficiency and waste such as time and effort in communication.

Questions

  • Do you have system development experience based on lean software development?
  • Please think about pros/cons regarding lean software development.
  • What is the major difference between lean manufacturing and lean software development?

References

1.Lean Manufacturing vs. Agile Software Development | Peter Anthony. (2011, September 13). Peter C. Anthony

2.Waters, K. (2010, August 16). 7 Key Principles of Lean Software Development | All About Agile. All About Agile | Agile Development Made Easy!

3. Poppendieck.LLC. (n.d.).Poppendieck.LLC
Retrieved February 5, 2013, from http://www.poppendieck.com/

4. SAD, t. s. (n.d.). Agile/Lean Documentation: Strategies for Agile Software Development. Agile Modeling (AM) Home Page: Effective Practices for Modeling and Documentation

5. Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit for Software Development Managers by Mary Poppendieck - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists . (n.d.). Share Book Recommendations With Your Friends, Join Book Clubs, Answer Trivia

Are Six Sigma and Lean Thinking for everybody?



It is a common phenomenon to observe the rapid and wide-spread adoption of in-vogue approaches to enduring problems in many professional fields. We witnessed “cluster fever” in the early 1990s in the field of local and regional economic development and the conditional cash transfer wave in the international development arena in the early 2000s. In the supply chain world Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing are the next big thing. But are they ready for mass implementation?

An article from the Wall Street Journal indicates that 60% of all corporate Six Sigma manufacturing and supply chain initiatives fail to yield the desired results. In many of the cases the problem had less to do with the methodology in itself and more with the capabilities of the organization and the resilience of its employees; sustaining a process of continuous innovation is a task that few companies can cope with. Related to this lack of capability is the extensive dependence on consulting companies and Six Sigma experts to provide the knowhow. Once the implementation yields the first results, many of the experts depart without building employee capabilities to maintain and monitor the new processes in place. 

The lack of results is not exclusive for six sigma approaches. The Supply Chain Digest claims that only 2% of Lean initiatives advanced to the point where they can be linked to financial improvements. As with the case of Six Sigma, the situation that led to this underachievement of results is correlated with lack of capabilities within the firms: misconception of Lean supply chain as a cost reduction hatchet rather than a method to serve customers and remove waste; lack of broad organizational engagement; conflicts with other initiatives; and lack of coordination within an organization, etc. 

The failure to produce results may also have to do with the fact that some business models are not easily standardized to increase efficiency and due to differences in the power of firms to affect the market structure. For example a company like Dell, a champion of Lean supply chain processes, is capable of imposing not-so-favorable terms of competition to its providers, thus increasing its maneuver margin to be constantly pleased but never satisfied; a perception that probably very few of its providers will share.

At the end of the day the most innovative approaches in supply chain management seem to be deeply reliant on other factors such as organizational culture, capabilities and market power of the firm. In this world of hyper competence small and medium enterprises may have to come up with their own “next big trend”. This should not be regarded as a natural disadvantage, the race for innovation has often produced great advancements in many fields; after all the champions of lean supply chain and six sigma are part of radical innovators who often challenge themselves above their own expectations.

References:
Breen, Bill (2004) “Living in Dell Time”, Fast Company Magazine, December 2004.
Supply Chain Digest (2013), “Supply Chain News: What are the Barriers to Lean Success?”, January 30 2013, available at:
http://www.scdigest.com/ontarget/13-01-30-2.php?cid=6680
Chakravorty, satya (2012), “Where Process-Improvement Projects Go Wrong”, Wall Street Journal, June 14 2012, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457471313938130.html

Small-Business Lean Manufacturing


In 2009, Harley Davidson experienced a severe decrease in sales due to the economic recession. Chief executive Keith Wandell realized the need to cut costs and created a lean manufacturing strategy to the small business. Lean manufacturing is the action of removing anything unnecessary to the company's service or product in the production system. This "waste removal" has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Yet, lean thinking can have adverse effects such as decreased employee morale and faulty production or service if applied improperly.

Wandell successfully reduced costs by decreasing the number of hourly workers by 50%, increasing each employee's skill set, consolidating 41 buildings into one large factory and refiguring "sloppy" production practices. Wandell also negotiated about 100 workers' schedules as flexible so that they only work when needed. These changes were monumental for a small business such as Harley Davidson, and could have been a detriment to employee morale. The business thrives though, as the hourly workers maintained mutual respect with their managers. Although the production pace increased, hourly workers are able to swap designations with coworkers to avoid fatigue and are encouraged to place finishing touches on their products before sending them to another department. Overall, Wandell increased Harley Davidson's profit margin by 3.5% that year by applying lean thinking to his production system.

This applies to "How to Compare Six Sigma, Lean and the Theory of Constraints," by Dave Nave, who defines lean thinking and its assumptions. Nave states that one of the methodology assumptions is "people in operations appreciate this approach." Harley Davidson is a small business with a unique culture where employees highly value their production line, efficiency and products. Davidson employees are not just making motorcycles, they are creating them. (Refer to Harvard Business School article, "Harley-Davidson Motor Co.: Enterprise Software Selection Solution," by R. Austin.) Lean manufacturing offers a way to reevaluate production systems to increase their efficiency, but what if the employees do not respond well to the rearrangement of their work processes and forced faster pace? Does corporate culture weigh heavier than company size when deciding whether to apply lean strategies?

Source: "Harley Goes Lean to Build Hogs" by James Hagerty. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443720204578004164199848452.html

2 Bin KanBan System Spreads to Pennsylvania


2 Bin KanBan System Spreads to Pennsylvania

In early 2011 executive staff from St. Clair hospital in Pittsburgh, PA visited Seattle’s Children’s Hospital in the hopes of studying its well-regarded 2 bin Kanban system.  They hoped to gain some insight into how to implement a similar system here in Western Pennsylvania hopefully propelling them to the forefront of supply stock management in the region.  It has been shown from numerous reports the efficacy of the Seattle system[i] [ii].  Using the visual cues as a communication method between physicians and material supply staff has drastically improved the organization and reduced stock outs at Seattle Children’s[iii].

St. Clair’s implementation, while at heart very similar, has some key strategic differences.  When empty a clinician or unit nurse sees an empty bin, they move it to a designated empty bin zone and pull the 2nd bin forward.  When material staff comes in to check the rooms, they simply have to collect all the boxes from the empty bin zone and scan them for replacement[iv].  They also are some of the first in the region to bring in industrial engineers using advanced statistical analysis to determine initial stock levels and assist in the implementation.  They removed fixed cabinetry and unused fixtures such as sinks[v].  Allowing for more space allowed for all items to be stored effectively.  The materials department is constantly tracking usage levels and making adjustments, sometimes identifying stock outs before they happen.

A group of CMU students visited St. Clair fall of 2012 to learn more and offer potential improvements to this system.  The results of this visit are still pending but it is a clear sign that St. Clair is leading the lean charge in Western PA and the surrounding regions.  They have consistently been reporting under-budget supply orders and close to zero manual order entries.  This is a system that other neighboring hospitals should seek to implement. 

Questions: Can you think of any other improvements to the current 2 bin Kanban?  Can you anticipate any challenges that such a system would pose?


[i] Wellman, J., Hagen, P. Jefferies, H. Leading the Lean Healthcare Journey: Driving Culture Change to Increase Value. Taylor & Francis. 2010
[ii] Gamble K H. Waste Management. Healthcare Informatics. February 25, 2009. http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/waste-management?page=2
[iii] Wellman, J., Hagen, P. Jefferies, H. Leading the Lean Healthcare Journey: Driving Culture Change to Increase Value. Taylor & Francis. 2010
[iv] Lyon, T. Two Bin System at St. Clair Hospital. St. Clair Hospital. YouTube. August 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjSwwPF5BUU&feature=plcp
[v] Lyon, T. Two Bin System at St. Clair Hospital. St. Clair Hospital. YouTube. August 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjSwwPF5BUU&feature=plcp

High Tech Sewing Machines Revolutionizing a Low Tech Supply Chain

Automakers and other manufacturing industries, for decades, have been able to develop more efficient supply chains through the use of automated systems to track the assembly cycle of a product. This process of tracking a product from its miscellaneous parts to a finish good has been able to save both time and manufacturing costs.

Yet, the retail and clothing industry has been lagging in implementing the same type of management system.  This is due in large part to the inherent nature of the low tech apparel industry.  Profit margins are driven by cheap labor and low-cost factories, which is why these industries are attracted to low-wage countries in Asia.

Last year, however, Sun Star Machinery, the largest manufacturer of sewing machines in the world, started producing a "smart" sewing machine.  These machines have both computers and a display built into them.  This allows for standardized stitching as well as the ability to provide live, instant feedback on production.  That information can then be sent all the way to the customer, in real time, allowing them to know exactly how long much longer it will take for the order to be completed and when, precisely,  it will be shipped.  Such an upgrade enhances customer service as it decreases uncertainty in terms of inventory management.  Retailers, know how long the production process takes and when exactly the finished goods will be ready for transport, making inventory decisions easier.  This is even more important, to "fast retailers" with a short EOQ model and an inventory turnaround of about a week.

Bethel Industries, a military apparel company based in New Jersey, saw a 25% increase in production after the implementation of these "smart" sewing machines. Though the cost (50% more than the average sewing machine) may slow widespread adaption.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578250013428206842.html?KEYWORDS=supply+chain

Alibaba: 100-Billion Investment on New Logistical Network


According to a local newspaper agency, the Alibaba Group has recently decided to invest the first CNY100 billion ($16.08 billion) into a project with a few industrial partners to build a new logistics network, which will be capable of overnight products delivery across China in eight to ten years.1 Alibaba runs the biggest e-commerce platform in China, which recorded an unprecedented single-day revenue of CNY19.1 billion ($3 billion) on November 11, 2012.

The rational behind this huge investment is that Alibaba believes that logistics is the bottleneck that stands in the way of the booming e-commerce in China. Another e-commerce giant, Jingdong Mall has already started working on its own smart logistics system back in 2007.

Recent years have witnessed a competition in logistics system between e-commerce giants in China. It may be true that logistics is the bottleneck of the expanding e-commerce industry. However, most questions for those e-commerce giants are not about the projects, but go to the timing. Is it too early to all in?



[1]. http://www.supplychaindigital.com/global_logistics/china-retail-giant-spearheads-new-logistics-network