Typical responses to process variation are often unnecessarily complex, costly, and inconsistent. The seven steps outlined here will help organizations avoid those problems while effectively controlling variations.
Ivan Seselj (ivan.seselj@promapp.com)is the founderof Promapp Solutions (www.promapp.com), a provider of cloud-based business process management (bpm) software. Promapp was recently acquired by Nintex, a provider of intelligent process automation.
Companies are increasingly embracing business process management (BPM) as a way to make their supply chains more agile and efficient. After all, BPM involves taking a disciplined approach to identifying, standardizing, managing, and streamlining workflows and processes that span organizational boundaries. A BPM tool can, for example, provide a visual representation of the processes that run throughout the supply chain. This representation can significantly improve communication with all of the trading partners by helping to clarify roles and responsibilities, identify handover points, and reveal areas of inefficiency and waste. Standardized supply chain processes reduce wastage by identifying inefficiencies in both the products used and the processes that employ them. In industries like healthcare, where supplies are second only to staff costs in an organization, those savings can be significant.
While BPM provides many benefits, one challenge that many organizations continue to struggle with is managing and standardizing process variations. In fact, Steve Stanton—managing director of the consulting company FCB Partners and a pioneer of business process modeling—believes that the vast majority of the organizations he knows have failed at process standardization because managing variations is so difficult.
There are several common reasons for supply chain process variations. For example, a company may need to customize the customer's experience based on attributes such as profile, size, location, and behavior. Or it may need to slightly alter its receiving process to accommodate the unique nuances of each of its suppliers. For example, an organization which has multiple suppliers for the same raw material or product may apply a variation category (like "supplier") to their standard sourcing processes. This variation category will allow them to capture the nuances related to managing each individual supplier, while still governing the process variances from the company's standard process.
Another source of process variation is the fact that individual countries—and even some regions within countries—often have different tax or customs regulations and policies that require the company to customize certain processes such as shipping. In fact, globalization is making it increasingly difficult for many organizations to manage process variations. This is certainly the case for multinationals that have numerous locations and offer multiple core products or services. Even relatively small companies are now regularly selling into different countries and operating in multiple regulatory environments, increasing their process variation challenge.
If not managed effectively, developing and managing separate processes for different types of customers or suppliers or for different geographic regions can require a major investment in time and energy and lead to cost overruns. In addition, each new process variation can introduce process inconsistencies and additional complexity. To get the full benefits of business process management and process standardization without incurring significant extra cost or complexity, companies need to develop an effective way to manage process variations.
Ineffective responses to process variations
Typically, one finds three common responses to the problem of process variation along the supply chain. While they may offer some benefits, in general they are ineffective and can create additional problems for organizations that adopt them.
The first response is to create standardized processes at a high level only. This approach is most commonly found in companies just beginning to use business process management or smaller organizations. The problem with this approach is that it provides information at the 10,000-foot level—in other words, it provides basic information that is so summarized that it's of no use to anyone for day-to-day process guidance or as a platform from which to make future changes.
A second response is to create "mega-processes" that cover every conceivable variation. This approach is typically preferred by highly technical teams or large transformation projects and is characterized by detailed, technically correct process documents that apply approved process-notation standards. Unfortunately, teams often find the documented processes difficult to comprehend and engage with, so they ultimately ignore them. Additionally, because the process owners are reluctant to make any changes or implement improvements, process documentation quickly becomes out-of-date and of little use. The complex documentation can also stall agility and future opportunities for improvement.
The third fairly typical approach finds organizations at each point along the supply chain allowing owners to create their own, separate process variations. Commonly found among organizations that are further along the process management maturity curve, this approach is fraught with problems. Chief among them is the fact that separate, individual process variations that are owned, managed, and changed independently inevitably result in numerous administrative headaches. As these individualized variations drift further from the original standard, problems arise like incorrect stock orders and deliveries, product returns, and so forth. Without a strong link to the original standard they become less like variations and more like isolated, independent processes that are hard to track or manage.
Seven steps for managing process variations
But supply chain organizations need not limit themselves to the ineffective responses to process variation outlined above. Instead, they should put in place a set ofunderlying capabilities and policies that can help them achieve the benefits of standardized processes across the entire supply chain. The seven steps recommended below will help organizations better manage controlled process variations:
Seven capabilities that help companies manage process variation
1. Organizations should agree on the core or standard process, which then forms a platform against which to consider local variations.
2. Local process variations should only be established from this standard process base. Any changes should be applied by variant experts and be highlighted and visible against the core process.
3. Any changes the global process owners make to the standard process should be submitted to the applicable local variant owners for their approval.
4. Business teams should compare and report on all the process variations that exist for each standard process.
5. There should be a global reporting capability so that process experts can see the list of processes that exist for each variant type.
6. When implementing processes, business teams should be allowed to select the variation they seek from a list or be automatically routed to the appropriate process variant for their location, product team, business unit, and so forth.
7. Organizations should calculate the difference in cost and time between variations and the standard process.
1. Organizations should agree on the core or standard process. This works well for high-level processes like procure-to-pay, idea-to-offering, order-to-cash, and plan-to-inventory. This is standardization at a value stream level and should ideally allow users to drill down into process specific details. For example, procure-to-pay may have multiple sub-processes that make up the end-to-end view, like create or maintain suppliers, prepare purchase order, receive goods and material, and process payment.
At the process detail level, it is possible to include factors such as participants and handoffs between participants, triggers, inputs, outputs, activities (process steps), tasks (transactional-level detail), supplemental documents, and answers to common questions that come up while performing the process. It is possible to measure process evolution and effectiveness by tracking items such as active time, wait time, cost, process specific key performance indicators (KPIs) or service level agreements (SLAs), supporting systems, automation/workflow integration, and opportunities for improvement. This standard core process will form a platform against which to consider local variations and will be owned by global process owners. They will be responsible for overseeing the process efficiency and effectiveness, regardless of the localized variations, with a corporate perspective rather than an individual departmental concern. A global process owner should know the process well enough to manage it and have the executive authority to make changes where efficiencies are identified. Although there may be—in fact, should be—input from different team members into what the standard process should look like, the global process owner ultimately makes the final call on what the core, or standard, process is. Once agreed on, all standard processes should be stored in a central repository where teams can easily access relevant, up-to-date processes when they need them.
2. Local process variations should only be established from this standard process. Any changes should be made by a local process expert who is responsible for that specific variant. This expert is the person who knows the local variation best. While they might not execute the process, they understand the steps and ramifications of each activity, and recognize what makes their context distinct. In order to manage process variants effectively, teams will need to use a BPM tool that can show the process variants against the core process, so it's easy to see where and how each process variant differs from the standard global process.
3. Any changes that the global process owners make to the standard process should be submitted to the applicable local variant owners for review. This ensures that any change to the general process is merged into the local variation or properly amended. This is important because the process change may need to be reflected in a different way in a specific country or for a specific product. For example, the activity might be completed by a different role in a certain country, or there may be local regulations that prevent the process change from being implemented as it has been in the standard global process.
4. There should be a global reporting capability so that process owners can see the list of processes that exist for each variant type. This facilitates awareness, review of, and, if necessary, rationalization of the number of process variations.
5. Business teams should regularly compare and report on all the process variations that exist for each standard process. They should, for example, be able to generate process variation time/cost savings reports to compare and contrast the performance of process variants against the standard. This report should include factors such as active time, wait time, cost, and any unique KPIs or SLAs. In order to control process variations, it's important to see and discuss process activities that have been added, removed, or changed when compared to the standard process on a regular basis.
6. When implementing a new process, business teams should be allowed to select the appropriate process variation for them from a list. Or, if they have a default location, product team, business unit, or so forth, they should be automatically routed to the relevant process variant. When implementing a new process, business teams want to see information that is relevant to them, their roles, and their location. Enabling teams to quickly find relevant process information is critical in order to drive engagement and process adherence.
7. Organizations should calculate the difference in cost and time between variations and the standard process. This allows organizations to make informed decisions about whether to keep, challenge, or eliminate process variations based on time and cost impact. For instance, if one location has greater logistics costs through distance or local tariffs, the variation needs to reflect this but where the difference is due to outdated plant or machinery creating delays, the variation could be eliminated with strategic capital investment in the plant. It's also important to recognize that in some cases, time and cost won't be the only considerations. For example, certain key customers may warrant a special shipping option that is more expensive than the standard shipping practice.
These seven capabilities and policies allow the entire organization to understand the extent of the process variations they are managing, to control and report on them, and to challenge them. This clarity and control will help teams along the supply chain be more agile, more flexible, and better able to customize (or eliminate) activities as they see fit.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.