Professor John Gattorna makes the case for considering
the impact of human decisions when managing supply
chains in today's fast-changing business environment.
Supply chain professionals worldwide are struggling to manage during a time of unprecedented change; what was standard practice yesterday is ineffective today. To succeed in this volatile business environment, companies need to implement a new supply chain model, says Dr. John L. Gattorna. In his latest book, Dynamic Supply Chain Alignment: A New Business Model for Peak Performance in Enterprise Supply Chains Across All Geographies, Gattorna and his co-authors suggest a model that addresses not only technology and infrastructure concerns but also recognizes the influence of "the human dimension" —the decisions and choices made by people at all levels of a company and throughout the supply chain.
Known around the world as a leading thinker, author, and lecturer on supply chain management, Gattorna owned a consulting firm in his native Australia that specialized in logistics and marketing. From 1995 to 2002, he led the consulting firm Accenture's logistics strategy practice in the Asia Pacific region. Since then, he has taught at several Australian universities. The author of such widely used books as Living Supply Chains: How to Mobilize the Enterprise Around Delivering What Your Customers Want and Handbook of Supply Chain Management, he is a frequent speaker at conferences and universities worldwide.
In an interview with Editor James A. Cooke, Dr. Gattorna discussed some of the new book's principal ideas.
You and your co-authors raise the idea of dynamic alignment, a new business model for
peak performance in supply chains. Can you briefly describe this model?
The model breaks with convention. It is constructed of four levels and mixes the soft —human behavior —with the hard —assets and technology. Essentially, the model contends that for companies to deliver sustained operational and financial performance, you need four dimensions to be aligned. They are: an especially deep understanding of your customers' buying preferences in the served market; appropriate value propositions for the different behavioral segments identified in your marketplace; the internal, cultural capability inside the business to execute these value propositions; and finally, the leadership style of the top team, which is so important in shaping the required (and sometimes conflicting) subcultures. The model also looks at source markets on the supply side, and it proposes the alignment of the business with suppliers as well. So it has both a demand-side component and a supply-side component.
Why do companies need to adopt this new model?
Current practices, even in the so-called best companies, focus on technology, infrastructure, hard assets, processes, and the like. But they fail to recognize the critical importance of human behavior and decision making throughout the supply chain. At least 50 percent of the activity in enterprise supply chains is driven by humans making choices and decisions. On the outside, it is customers and suppliers, and on the inside, it is employees, management, and boards of directors. Yet where have we allowed for this major influence in the design and operation of contemporary supply chains?
To be blunt, this "human dimension" is at best ignored, and at worst, we see companies in denial about the role of human decision making and behavior. In effect, it is like an engine firing on half its cylinders. Until companies can come to grips with how to link their customers with their internal workings and leadership, the best we can hope for is 10- to 20-percent alignment, which is very wasteful.
What we have to recognize is that the old "one size fits all" model is dead, and that it must be replaced by a multiple-supply chain alignment model that can deliver around an 80-percent fit with the marketplace, even in changing and volatile trading environments. This approach provides new meaning to the word "flexibility."
Are any companies using this model right now?
Zara in Spain is mixing an agile supply chain on the demand side with a lean supply chain on the supply side. Adidas in Europe implemented some alignment principles for the 2006 FIFA (International Federation of Association Football) World Cup in Germany, and it managed to reduce its lead times by 80 percent. Dell is in the middle of reviewing its go-to-market strategy and how it will align with its changing customer base, which is made up of consumer, business, corporate, and educational segments. Ditto for Nokia, which is in the midst of a major transformation to catch up lost ground conceded to Apple.
Parts of DHL in Asia/Pacific have implemented the dynamic alignment model, with stunning results. ... Several companies in Brazil have also transformed themselves using alignment principles, assisted by Axia Consulting in Brazil. Elgeka, a major distributor of branded consumer products in Greece, is embracing alignment for its business on both the supply side and the demand side. ... And the numbers grow daily as the word spreads. ... The common theme is that in each case the leadership has a close understanding of, and empathy with, the customers and suppliers.
In the book, you make this statement: "Out with balanced scorecards in the supply chain, and in with biased KPIs." What do you mean by that?
Despite the fact that balanced scorecards have been widely applied in businesses, in my opinion the system is too general and unfocused. As such, a lot of effort goes into collecting the required data, but this generally is poorly interpreted and ineffectual in the execution.
What I am suggesting instead is that, once you know that you have to service three or four different customer types in terms of buyer behavior, this automatically defines the matching supply chain configurations that will be required to achieve multiple alignment. And as we configure each type of supply chain and develop the necessary capabilities, we will, among other things, decide which KPIs (key performance indicators) are most appropriate to drive the behavior of internal staff in the desired direction. The KPIs are specific to the type of customer and the relevant supply chain.
So, for example, for those customers who are collaborative, we incentivize our people first for retaining them as long as possible, and second, for increasing our share of wallet. Those are the two KPIs that matter, and the rest fade into insignificance. That's what I mean by "bias."
You wrote that by 2030, there will be a need for differentiated service offerings and a supporting portfolio of supply chain types. Can you expand on that idea?
By 2030, I think, many of the alignment ideas —as applied to the overall business and within that context, the enterprise supply chains —that I propose in the book will be widely embraced by companies that have consciously reset their supply chain strategies. In particular, companies that will be thriving will be those that have moved away from treating supply chain as a specialist function to treating supply chain thinking as more of a business philosophy that must be adopted in some part by all functions. At that stage, supply chains will be the business, and the business will be supply chains.
Editor's Note:Dynamic Supply Chain Alignment: A New Business Model for Peak Performance in Enterprise Supply Chains Across All Geographies, published by Gower Publishing, is available through a variety of outlets, including online booksellers, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, and other organizations.
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.