At most companies, customers' needs are not high on the list of factors driving supply chain strategy. In this excerpt from his new book, Dr. J. Paul Dittmann of the University of Tennessee explains the potentially costly consequences of that policy.
Paul Dittmann, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Global Supply Chain Institute at the University of Tennessee Knoxville's Haslam College of Business.
ADAPTED WITH PERMISSION FROM SUPPLY CHAIN TRANSFORMATION: BUILDING AND EXECUTING AN INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGY, PUBLISHED BY MCGRAW HILL PROFESSIONAL BOOKS (SEPTEMBER 2012).
When you begin the hard work of developing a supply chain strategy for your company, should you start with an analysis of your suppliers and work logically forward through the supply chain, just as material physically flows through it? Or should you start with your customer's needs and work backward?
Article Figures
[Figure 1] Main drivers of supply chain strategy decisionsEnlarge this image
In my career in industry, I developed supply chain strategies starting both on the supply side and on the demand side. In my experience, the two approaches yield very different results. Starting on the supply side focuses strategy teams initially on determining supply chain best practices and on developing a strategy to appropriately employ those best practices from the vendor base to the firm, and finally out to the customer. This approach certainly is not all bad. Starting with the customer, by contrast, concentrates the supply chain strategy on responding to the needs of the customers and on determining how best to satisfy those needs all the way back to the vendor base. Does it matter which strategy you follow? You bet it does, as we'll show later—but first, a few statistics.
Supply chain strategy drivers
According to our database at the University of Tennessee, 85-90 percent of supply chain strategies use the supplier-forward approach. These strategies start with an analysis of best practices on the supply side and work forward to the customer. This was clearly evident when we recently surveyed 40 supply chain executives, whose firms range from retailers to manufacturers and vary in size from nearly US $1 billion in annual sales to over $50 billion, and asked them to indicate the main drivers of their supply chain strategy decisions. Their answers are shown in Figure 1.
These results indicate that understanding best practices on the supply side of the supply chain is the biggest driver of supply chain strategy decisions. Customer needs, as a strategy driver, is in fifth place.
It makes a lot of sense to me that the supplier-forward approach would be more popular. Launching a study of best supply chain practices is "supply chain stuff," and we supply chain professionals love digging into and learning more about our own area of expertise. It's our comfort zone, and we feel at home nestled in this cocoon. Unfortunately, that's where many of us stay or get stuck, and the customer becomes an afterthought.
When the customer comes last, two dangerous possibilities emerge. Either the company fails to meet the requirements of the customer, or it over-engineers in an attempt to adopt generalized best practices without taking the time to find out what is necessary and what is overkill.
While understanding the customer helps companies provide the right amount of product at the right time and in the right place, it requires a shift in mindset for many supply chain professionals. In a recent supply chain assessment for a manufacturer of a product that is used in residential housing and sold commercially, we almost never heard the customer mentioned. When we specifically asked one supply chain executive about the needs of the customer, he shrugged and said, "The sales folks are watching out for that." His perspective is not unique.
But who is the customer? Leading companies answer this question by looking not only at the next upstream point in their supply chains, but also to the end consumer of their products. For example, when I was at Whirlpool, we saw retailers like Lowe's and Sears as customers, and we viewed their customers, the general public, as our end consumers. We considered the needs of each to be equally vital but somewhat different from a supply chain viewpoint.
Starting with the customer gives a company a clear sense of the needs they are fulfilling and how those needs may be changing, as well as some insight into what will be required to continue to fulfill them through the planning horizon. Those requirements then need to be considered and balanced with the other key metrics that most companies use to assess supply chain performance. After all, supply chain professionals tend to be evaluated on a scorecard that includes more than customer service. Specifically, supply chain executives have at least two other major metrics, namely, cost and working capital (inventory). Leading companies look for ways to balance these three factors and meet their goals in each area. They want to serve the customer well, but they generally must meet very aggressive operating cost and inventory goals too.
In a recent supply chain assessment, we reviewed a company's North American supply chain strategy and noted that this company, like many, considered the customer to be a secondary concern. Its strategy focused on best practices in supply chain systems and processes. The senior supply chain executive posed an interesting and probably rhetorical question: "Does focusing the supply chain strategy on the customer mean that cost and working capital goals take a back seat?" He quickly added, "Of course, the reality of business today demands that we address all three simultaneously. We constantly react to aggressive demands by sales to take care of specific customer needs. Sales watches out for the customer. Sure, we in supply chain need to react, but at the lowest possible cost and inventory."
Know your customers' plans
We believe that the strategy development effort absolutely should start with the customer's needs. But that doesn't mean abandoning best-practice considerations. Nor does it mean that the strategy ignores the company's and its shareholders' needs in order to also achieve world-class levels of cost and working capital.
Starting with the customer may be unfamiliar ground for you, as it was for me. But customers should be regularly assessed to identify both their present and their future supply chain requirements. Failure to do so can lead to unforeseen and very costly consequences.
For example, a large retail customer supplied by a manufacturing company planned in two years to reduce the number of distribution centers (DCs) it maintained, and instead require its suppliers to deliver directly to many of its retail stores. The manufacturer's supply chain vice president told us that his company found out about the coming change when he interviewed the retailer as part of the strategic planning process, and that he probably found out at least a year before any official announcement. The change would require his company to increase the number of delivery locations from eight distribution centers, to four DCs and 386 store locations. This clearly represented a massive change in distribution requirements, and it required an aggressive and strategic response.
In another case, a supplier found that one of its large customers was close to launching a major electronic commerce initiative and would expect the supplier to provide delivery directly to consumers' homes. The manager of logistics told us, "We were blindsided by this request. Did not see it coming. We have no experience doing home deliveries. That's a whole new ballgame." Only by conducting an ongoing dialogue with your customers will you have the lead time you need to respond to these kinds of changes.
Other companies have found that customers' inventory sensitivity should be closely monitored for changes. Some retailers are hypersensitive to working-capital and cash-flow considerations, and some are not. Some require their vendors to carry inventory for them and to serve them quickly. Others believe that they need their own DCs in order to control the fill rates to their customers, and they can tolerate less frequent deliveries.
One manufacturer found that its customers' stock-keeping unit (SKU) strategies needed to be closely surveyed when one of its customers abruptly communicated its plan to greatly expand its SKU offerings beyond the limited set carried in a nearby warehouse. Because a major SKU expansion was in the offing, the manufacturer needed a strategy to deal with that.
As suggested by the experience of the companies mentioned above, a few of the questions manufacturing firms should routinely ask about their customers include:
Will they expect suppliers to hit very narrow delivery windows in the future?
What will be their future policy regarding returns?
What are their policies regarding packaging and damage?
Will they want special labeling or other customization of products?
Will they require special delivery services for their emerging electronic commerce business?
Will they radically change their network, such as reducing the number of DCs and increasing direct-to-store deliveries?
Will they change their inventory policy and expect their suppliers to carry much more of the inventory?
Will they want an expansion in SKUs?
These questions may seem tactical, but they could lead to the development of costly and complex new supply chain capabilities. Questions like these will be critical to your supply chain strategy.
End consumers are a completely different challenge. Retailers must understand the needs of their end consumers, and many manufacturers could benefit from understanding consumer supply chain needs as well. Firms need to anticipate how end consumers will behave in the future, and then use that forecast as critical input in determining what new supply chain capabilities they will need to create in light of those trends.
For example, one large retailer surveyed its customers and used that information to identify seven major consumer trends that would impact its supply chain strategy. They were:
The time-pressured customer who wants a faster shopping experience in a smaller format;
The aging customer who desires a friendlier shopping experience that is not physically challenging;
Customers who are technologically savvy and want to combine store purchases with online supplements;
The "dot.com" (electronic commerce) era, with more shopping online;
Social networking, with impacts not yet fully understood;
"Green" sensitivity in customers who prefer products that are made, packaged, transported, used, and disposed of in an environmentally friendly way;
Greater responsiveness to exciting in-store marketing.
In summary, companies should begin their supply chain strategy planning by understanding the needs of their customers, and then working back through their supply chain to identify the capabilities they will need to develop in order to delight those customers.
Note:Supply Chain Transformation: Building and Executing an Integrated Supply Chain Strategy, published by McGraw Hill Professional Books, lists for US $40 in hardcover, and is also available as an e-book.
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.