Skip to content
Search AI Powered

Latest Stories

How the discipline came of age

In this excerpt from Episode 1, supply chain pioneers Joseph Andraski, George Gecowets, Roger Kallock, and Mark Richards discuss how the discipline evolved from physical distribution into supply chain management.

How did the discipline of supply chain management come to be? Four individuals instrumental in shaping the profession—Joseph Andraski, George Gecowets, Roger Kallock, and Mark Richards—came together for a panel discussion on how supply chain management has evolved over the years. Their experience in the field and their decades-long involvement with CSCMP provide them with a valuable perspective on the way companies have viewed what we now know as supply chain management.

Active in CSCMP since 1976,Joseph Andraski is president of the consulting firm Collaborative Energizer. He has been the president and CEO of the Voluntary Interindustry Commerce Solutions (VICS), and prior to that held executive positions in logistics and supply chain at Nabisco. He received CSCMP's Distinguished Service Award in 1995.


George Gecowets joined CSCMP in 1964, one year after its formation. He later became the organization's first full-time executive director. At the time of his retirement in 2001, Gecowets, the 1988 recipient of CSCMP's Distinguished Service Award, held the position of executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Roger Kallock served as U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for logistics and material readiness from 1998 to 2001. Currently chairman of Chagrin Consulting, he has worked in both consulting and in industry. A member of CSCMP since 1968, he received the organization's Distinguished Service Award in 1990.

Mark Richards, currently vice president of Associated Warehouses Inc., has been very involved in CSCMP since he began his career in the field some 34 years ago. His first job was with the public warehouse company Distribution Centers Inc. He later went on to work for such companies as Nabisco, Gillette, and Oral-B.

The interview was conducted by CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly Group Editorial Director Mitch Mac Donald.

What were some of the events that led to the formation of the association in 1963?
Andraski: In the late '60s and early '70s we had a transportation discipline, a warehousing discipline, and inventory management. Thought leaders said warehousing and transportation should really come together. We called that physical distribution. Over time we began to have control of the product and the ability to work with customers. It wasn't as though somebody came up with a great idea that we need to have this holistic organization.

Gecowets: We really didn't have a profession back then. As I look back on what happened in each decade, we really created a profession as well as built a profession. Most of the people in [CSCMP's] founding group had a marketing background, and as marketing people they happened to be the person who was responsible for the movement and storage. They didn't know what to call it. Even traffic and transportation, which wound up being the big dollar area in logistics, was not well organized back then.

When you look back, it looks like all this was well planned and everything fell into place. It didn't. There was an awful lot of confusion. We didn't know what we didn't know. We didn't know what made a professional association. Fortunately, the executive committees that I have worked with in all the years right from the very beginning were highly professional.

Kallock: My first annual [CSCMP] conference was in 1968 in Chicago. Having come from Procter & Gamble and having joined A.T. Kearney in Chicago, I had no idea how the experiences that I had at P&G would fit into a broader consulting environment, but the people I met at the meeting allowed me to quickly develop a network of people I could trust and work with.

Richards: In many regards you could say I am a product of this organization, because my father was actively involved, and while I was still in school I went to an association meeting. Even when I went to that event, I had no plans to get into this profession. But it was that couple of days' experience that I had tagging along with my dad as a college student that made me decide to get into it.

Did the events of the '80s, such as the deregulation of transportation, change the dynamic of the profession?
Richards: It sure did. I was very new to the profession at the time and was working for a third party. My focus was more within the four walls, but what you started to see were people—manufacturers, for example—that were getting very creative with how they dealt with transportation, through things like consolidation. That is really when it started. People were collaborating. We were saying, let's share resources and as a result we would all benefit, including the customer. Again, being new to the profession, I thought this was exciting.

What were some of the visions and aspirations of the early founders?
Gecowets: We wanted early on to get to know each other. Then later on we wanted others in the corporation to get to know us. ... Incidentally, the founders were primarily interested in transportation, and I don't think we even met a warehouseman until we were in it about two years. Then, strangely, the warehousemen came in and provided the strong leadership of the organization very early on. Then we added the other functions. I think from the '70s to the '80s we started bringing in our peers from the marketing department. ... So we started in the '80s to work with our counterparts throughout the corporation.

When did we first start seeing job titles with the word "logistics" in them becoming more common?
Gecowets: I think we caused that. When we changed the name [from the National Council of Physical Distribution Management to the Council of Logistics Management in 1985] and moved from distribution to logistics, the demand for coalescence was there.

Kallock: The word "logistics" first started to appear on motor carriers' trailers. The company's name was "So and So Logistics Company." It was a military term at that point.

Gecowets: At first, "distribution" was more appropriate for what we were really doing, and logistics seemed kind of like a foreign word. I knew what it meant but I didn't know whether we could get others to know what it meant. It caught on so much faster than I thought.

Kallock: The hallmark of the organization was deeper than worrying about what it was called or what the title was. It had progressed through the '80s to become an amalgamation of individuals who respected each other and who were creative enough to try new technologies that were rapidly becoming available, and to put that in the context of what they as practitioners saw to be the challenges, not of today but of tomorrow.

For example, take distribution planning. Models were static. They assumed everything happened at a point in time versus the dynamic processing of orders and the real-time interaction between consumers or customers and the supplier. [Because it gave us] that opportunity to coalesce around what the needs of tomorrow were going to be in supply chain management, respect for then-CLM [Council of Logistics Management] as being a safe haven for sharing ideas across the supply chain and across industry grew pretty rapidly.

Andraski: We also have to recognize that senior management began to invite the logistics people, the supply chain people to talk with customers. It was important to have that representation so that when the customer was talking about service requirements and service failures, you had someone there who had the [relevant] knowledge and the understanding.

Richards: That has been one of the keys to the [success of the] organization. This organization helped to elevate the profession through research and through education, so that the C-level did say, "Wow, we need to have these folks involved." So again, it is the organization not being a lobby but being an influencer. There is a big difference.

Kallock: Going back to my experience at Procter & Gamble, we were moving from an organization that was focused on getting shipments out the door, to an organization that was dedicated to the education of people who thought the customer's point of view relative to how well the company was performing was very important. We moved from the supply side to the demand side, and then we put energy around carrying that message from the customer's perspective, from the consumer or the customer supplying the consumer back through the supply chain. And that is that way I look at it today.

Recent

More Stories

cover of report on electrical efficiency

ABI: Push to drop fossil fuels also needs better electric efficiency

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.”

Keep ReadingShow less

Featured

Logistics economy continues on solid footing
Logistics Managers' Index

Logistics economy continues on solid footing

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
iceberg drawing to represent threats

GEP: six factors could change calm to storm in 2025

The current year is ending on a calm note for the logistics sector, but 2025 is on pace to be an era of rapid transformation, due to six driving forces that will shape procurement and supply chains in coming months, according to a forecast from New Jersey-based supply chain software provider GEP.

"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."

Keep ReadingShow less
chart of top business concerns from descartes

Descartes: businesses say top concern is tariff hikes

Business leaders at companies of every size say that rising tariffs and trade barriers are the most significant global trade challenge facing logistics and supply chain leaders today, according to a survey from supply chain software provider Descartes.

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
photo of worker at port tracking containers

Trump tariff threat strains logistics businesses

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.

Keep ReadingShow less