Why VMI does not work for CPG companies
Thank you for your article on vendor-managed inventory (VMI) ("Time to reconsider VMI?," Quarter 4/2011). In the opening description of the snack-food company, we are provided with a wonderful description of a smart system. The retailer provides daily stock-balance information, and the snack-food manufacturer uses this valuable data to plan restocking deliveries, production capacity, and marketing campaigns (to speed up slower-than-anticipated demand). So why has this idea not been as successful with consumer packaged goods (CPG) manufacturers?
You report feedback that suggests that the VMI model is too expensive when compared with the benefits. You say that part of the problem is that VMI depends on accurate forecasts, and that these are proving to be elusive. You also state that point-of-sale (POS) systems provide clearer information to drive replenishment of inventory on hand. And you state that automatic replenishment is something that never happened with VMI.
But I do not see the difference in the two systems that would require one to rely on an accurate forecast and the other not to need this data. I also do not see why POS data provide clearer information in regard to inventory on hand. POS requires a calculation to determine stock balance. VMI requires a stock balance.
I suspect that the issue is more related to how the retailer is burdened by each method. POS is relatively easy to set up. Since goods are scanned to bill the customer, no extra work is required to capture additional data. In the case of VMI, where the retailer is required to provide a daily stock balance, there is the additional burden of needing to have a system to calculate the balance on hand and to send one extra transaction (inventory balance) per stock-keeping unit (SKU) to the manufacturer. It is a small burden, but a burden nevertheless.
I can see VMI working where inventory-balance data is integral to the retailer's process, for example with bulk retailers, which worry about this more so than CPG retailers. But for VMI to replace POS in CPG, a paradigm shift in the methods for collecting data is required.
Alan J. Bishop
Principal, Scoord
Franklin, Tennessee, USA
No substitute for face-to-face communication
I couldn't agree more with your suggestion that manufacturers and retailers sit down and have some face-to-face conversations. E-mails and phone calls make it easy for us to feel as though we have communicated and have alignment with partners. Unfortunately, using these methods to communicate also seems to make it easy to not stay committed to those things we may have discussed or agreed to with our supply chain partners. Meeting face-to-face makes commitments much more personal and difficult to not follow through when you know you'll be meeting face-to-face again at some future time.
I feel so strongly about the need for face-to-face conversations with partners that, when I was managing a supply chain for a manufacturer of health and beauty-care products, we had an ongoing practice that each third-party logistics company (3PL) we used would be visited by someone from our supply chain group (transportation, distribution operations, customer service, etc.) at least once per quarter. During each visit, our supply chain staff would conduct a brief audit of the operations using an audit tool that included items we and our 3PL partner had previously agreed were important. They would review the results prior to leaving the facility, and all parties would agree to any corrective actions needed. In addition, we had a standard question that was asked at every face-to-face meeting: What can we (the manufacturer) do to enable you to perform at a higher level of accuracy or efficiency?
Thank you again for reminding us all of the importance and value of face-to-face communications with our supply chain partners.
Mark Richards
Vice President, Associated Warehouses Inc.
Orange, California, USA
Editor's Note: Mr. Richards is responding to a March 2012 commentary in "Supply Chain Executive Insight," a monthly electronic newsletter developed by CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Sign up for this FREE newsletter.
Communication is key to lean success
"Guerrilla Lean: Leading a Lean initiative from below" (Quarter 1/2011) is a very good article on lean manufacturing. As the author correctly stated, need, vision, and ability to change are three parameters one should consider while bringing about a manufacturing transformation.
Leaders need to take their team with them if they want to achieve operational improvements. Motivating employees to adopt lean principles is a major challenge. One must be a powerful communicator (both written and oral) in order to influence others. It also requires management support and leadership. Determining why change is needed and what should be changed, and then creating the ability to change requires leadership and vision.
In order to adopt successful lean manufacturing in an organization, it is necessary to have thought leadership and emotional intelligence.
Sanjay Kumar Nanda
Consultant, Accenture India Pvt Ltd.
Hyderabad, India
Total cost approach crucial to all supply decisions
I just thought I'd share my opinions about the "Time to come home" article (Quarter 4/2011).
I think it was very well-written in that it was very precise, to the point, and also quite brief for an article that contained so many hard facts.
The sample total cost of ownership template was very helpful as to what to consider when quantifying the real cost of a product to be purchased. The template can be used not only for decisions about whether to offshore or reshore but also for all decisions related to picking sources of supply, even among local suppliers, since most of the criteria in the total cost approach can, at times, vary locally.
Also, in our industry, we have become used to quantifying almost every idea in order to make the transition from concept to practice. Without some number crunching, it is not likely that we will go too far. Therefore, I think, the article also stands out in that respect.
Mustafa Bayülgen
Team Manager Material Supply, Mercedes-Benz Türk A.Ş
Istanbul, Turkey
We want to hear from you!
We invite you to share your thoughts and opinions about the articles that appear in CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly by sending an e-mail to Editor James A. Cooke, or writing to:
James A. Cooke, Editor CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly
500 East Washington Street
North Attleboro, MA 02760
USA
We will publish selected readers' comments in future issues of the magazine. Correspondence may be edited for length or clarity.
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).
Grocers and retailers are struggling to get their systems back online just before the winter holiday peak, following a software hack that hit the supply chain software provider Blue Yonder this week.
The ransomware attack is snarling inventory distribution patterns because of its impact on systems such as the employee scheduling system for coffee stalwart Starbucks, according to a published report. Scottsdale, Arizona-based Blue Yonder provides a wide range of supply chain software, including warehouse management system (WMS), transportation management system (TMS), order management and commerce, network and control tower, returns management, and others.
Blue Yonder today acknowledged the disruptions, saying they were the result of a ransomware incident affecting its managed services hosted environment. The company has established a dedicated cybersecurity incident update webpage to communicate its recovery progress, but it had not been updated for nearly two days as of Tuesday afternoon. “Since learning of the incident, the Blue Yonder team has been working diligently together with external cybersecurity firms to make progress in their recovery process. We have implemented several defensive and forensic protocols,” a Blue Yonder spokesperson said in an email.
The timing of the attack suggests that hackers may have targeted Blue Yonder in a calculated attack based on the upcoming Thanksgiving break, since many U.S. organizations downsize their security staffing on holidays and weekends, according to a statement from Dan Lattimer, VP of Semperis, a New Jersey-based computer and network security firm.
“While details on the specifics of the Blue Yonder attack are scant, it is yet another reminder how damaging supply chain disruptions become when suppliers are taken offline. Kudos to Blue Yonder for dealing with this cyberattack head on but we still don’t know how far reaching the business disruptions will be in the UK, U.S. and other countries,” Lattimer said. “Now is time for organizations to fight back against threat actors. Deciding whether or not to pay a ransom is a personal decision that each company has to make, but paying emboldens threat actors and throws more fuel onto an already burning inferno. Simply, it doesn’t pay-to-pay,” he said.
The incident closely followed an unrelated cybersecurity issue at the grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, which has been recovering from impacts to the Stop & Shop chain that it across the U.S. Northeast region. In a statement apologizing to customers for the inconvenience of the cybersecurity issue, Netherlands-based Ahold Delhaize said its top priority is the security of its customers, associates and partners, and that the company’s internal IT security staff was working with external cybersecurity experts and law enforcement to speed recovery. “Our teams are taking steps to assess and mitigate the issue. This includes taking some systems offline to help protect them. This issue and subsequent mitigating actions have affected certain Ahold Delhaize USA brands and services including a number of pharmacies and certain e-commerce operations,” the company said.
Editor's note:This article was revised on November 27 to indicate that the cybersecurity issue at Ahold Delhaize was unrelated to the Blue Yonder hack.
The new funding brings Amazon's total investment in Anthropic to $8 billion, while maintaining the e-commerce giant’s position as a minority investor, according to Anthropic. The partnership was launched in 2023, when Amazon invested its first $4 billion round in the firm.
Anthropic’s “Claude” family of AI assistant models is available on AWS’s Amazon Bedrock, which is a cloud-based managed service that lets companies build specialized generative AI applications by choosing from an array of foundation models (FMs) developed by AI providers like AI21 Labs, Anthropic, Cohere, Meta, Mistral AI, Stability AI, and Amazon itself.
According to Amazon, tens of thousands of customers, from startups to enterprises and government institutions, are currently running their generative AI workloads using Anthropic’s models in the AWS cloud. Those GenAI tools are powering tasks such as customer service chatbots, coding assistants, translation applications, drug discovery, engineering design, and complex business processes.
"The response from AWS customers who are developing generative AI applications powered by Anthropic in Amazon Bedrock has been remarkable," Matt Garman, AWS CEO, said in a release. "By continuing to deploy Anthropic models in Amazon Bedrock and collaborating with Anthropic on the development of our custom Trainium chips, we’ll keep pushing the boundaries of what customers can achieve with generative AI technologies. We’ve been impressed by Anthropic’s pace of innovation and commitment to responsible development of generative AI, and look forward to deepening our collaboration."
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.