The Supply Chain Index: A new way to measure value
Supply chain executives need a more relevant set of metrics in order to better measure performance improvement. That's why the Supply Chain Index was created.
Supply chain management is a balancing act. Progress is made slowly through alignment and continuous improvement. The supply chain leader is charged with improving the potential of an organization at the intersection of operating margins, inventory turns, and case-fill rate. Sometimes the choices are made consciously, but others are unconscious and seem to just happen. Conscious choice in alignment with a business strategy is a strong factor in determining supply chain excellence.
While supply chain excellence is not the sole factor in a company's success, it is hard for a company to succeed without it. Ensuring success requires a nuanced approach that uses a portfolio of carefully selected metrics. In the journey toward excellence, we find that discrete industries are more focused on cycles, and process industries are more focused on the optimization of flows. However, all companies want a measuring stick of supply chain improvement.
[Figure 4] Orbit chart: Inventory turns vs. operating margin for selected food and beverage companies (2009-2012)Enlarge this image
[Figure 5] Orbit chart: Inventory turns vs. operating margin for selected food and beverage companies (2009-2012)Enlarge this image
[Figure 6] Supply Chain Index for food and beverage for 2006-2013Enlarge this image
[Figure 7] Comparison of performance and improvement for food manufacturersEnlarge this image
It is difficult to determine whether a company is making progress. It is for this reason that we built the Supply Chain Index.
Definition of the Supply Chain Index
The Supply Chain Index of performance improvement is built on the framework of the Effective Frontier (shown in Figure 1). In this model, growth and profitability must be maximized, cycle time should be reduced, and complexity needs to be managed. It is a complex system. An overweighed focus on any one of the four categories can wreak havoc on a supply chain's operations; similarly, a focus on a single metric can throw the supply chain out of balance.
Using this model, the Supply Chain Index is designed to measure supply chain progress on a portfolio of metrics. To build the index, we chose the metrics of year-over-year growth, return on invested capital (ROIC), operating margin, and inventory turns.
The index assumes that its three components—balance, strength, and resiliency—should be valued equally. Balance tracks the rate of improvement in growth and in return on invested capital, while strength and resiliency factors are based upon progress in profitability and inventory turns. We believe that together these three factors provide an effective tool for measuring supply chain performance and improvement over a set time period.
Each industry has different potential, or ability to reach metrics targets. It is a mistake to include information from different companies in a single spreadsheet and evaluate them as a group without understanding their industry potential and market drivers. The maturity and potential of each industry within a value network is very different.
The Supply Chain Index is a measurement of supply chain improvement. In this analysis, the starting year and the duration of the analysis matter. Some industries, like chemical, that struggled significantly during the Great Recession have rebounded with greater gains in recent years. Similarly, the overall results for apparel and food and beverage companies improved in this period, while results for retail and consumer packaged goods stalled. (See Figure 2).
Index methodology
There are three components of a Supply Chain Index score: Objective performance on balance, strength, and resiliency. Each contributes 30 percent of the final score.
Maintaining balance in the supply chain is a constant struggle. Reduced inventory availability wreaks havoc on customer-service levels. Excess inventory leads to high carrying costs and obsolescence of product. Excessively long days of payables leads to weakened supplier health. The examples are endless, but one thing is clear: balance is critical.
The two metrics that determine the balance factor are revenue growth and return on invested capital. As a metric, return on invested capital is not as well known as return on assets (ROA). Return on assets has a narrower focus; our research indicates that, as the formula below suggests, ROIC has better correlation with stock market capitalization and provides a broad perspective on cash-flow generation and profitability, both of which drive shareholder equity.
ROIC, then, is a measurement of a company's use of capital. The goal is to drive higher returns than the market rate of the cost of capital.
The balance measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory of the pattern between growth and ROIC for the period of 2006 to 2013. The overall trajectory of this vector from Year 0 (2006) to Year 6 (2013) is simplified into a single value that represents the company's ability to balance growth and ROIC. Companies that were able to drive improvement in both metrics score the best, while companies that deteriorated in both metrics did the worst. A negative score on the balance score translates to a supply chain that lost ground on the metrics compared to the starting year. In this report, we consider two time periods. Our initial analysis considers performance based upon a time period of 2006-2012. Additional analysis focuses on the narrower time period of 2009-2012 in order to examine corporate performance as companies emerged from the Great Recession.
The second factor in the index is strength. A successful supply chain is a strong supply chain. Supply chain leaders deliver year-over-year improvements. Our research over the past two years has uncovered a rich relationship between operating margin and inventory turns. For most supply chain leaders, these are some of the most important measures of their performance. Not only are they important, they also are more directly influenced by supply chain decisions than other, broader corporate metrics. It is for this reason they are the two components of our strength metric.
Similar to the calculation of balance, the strength measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory of the pattern between inventory turns and operating margins for the period of 2006 to 2013. The overall trajectory of this vector from Year 0 (2006) to Year 6 (2013) is simplified into a single value that represents strength. Improvement on both metrics simultaneously is graphically shown as movement to the upper-right quadrant, with increasing values for both inventory turns and operating margin over the period.
The strength metric comprises 30 percent of the total Supply Chain Index calculation. Sustained improvement on both inventory turns and operating margin indicates a strong supply chain and is reflected in a high strength score.
The third factor is resiliency—a word often used to describe one of the key qualities of a successful supply chain in today's volatile world. However, the concept of resiliency is difficult to define, and there is rarely clarity among stakeholders as to what resiliency is or should be.
As we plotted orbit chart after orbit chart, we could see that some supply chains showed very tight patterns at the intersection of operating margin and inventory turns, and that other companies had wild swings in their patterns. (An orbit chart is a plot of the trajectory of two metrics. It is useful in pattern recognition.) We wanted to find a way to measure the tightness, or reliability, of results for these two important metrics. For help, we turned to the experts at Arizona State University (ASU). After evaluating several methods to determine the pattern in the orbit charts, we settled upon the Euclidean mean distance between the points (a measurement of the compactness of the chart).
The resiliency metric is similar to the cash-to-cash cycle in that companies should work to minimize the value. A lower number for resiliency is an indicator of a tighter pattern and greater reliability in results over the time period. The results for these companies are more predictable and stable for operating margin and inventory turns.
The balance, resiliency, and strength values are calculated and then stack-ranked. Figure 3 shows the framework we use for making this determination. In the analysis, each industry segment, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, will be considered on an individual basis. As a result, Colgate-Palmolive Company will not be directly compared against Ford Motor Company or Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The definition of a best-in-class supply chain varies depending on the complexities and realities of the operating environment and it is not a one-size-fits-all business measurement.
"Most improved" does not mean "the best"
It is important to clarify what the Supply Chain Index is and is not. It is a methodology for ranking supply chains by industry and NAICS code, and the measurement is one of relative improvement. Our goal is to combine data on companies that have performed well—in the top 20 percent of their peer group for both inventory turns and operating margin for the period—along with a measurement of improvement, as measured by the Supply Chain Index.
It is critical to note that "most improved" over a specific time period does not mean best over that same time period. Industries like apparel that have historically underperformed on supply chain processes have greater opportunities for improvement than do companies in industries like consumer electronics, which has been a leader in supply chain performance for many years.
Oftentimes the results can be surprising, and this distinction between performance and improvement is critical. Often, companies that have the largest gaps in performance will improve at the fastest rate. To understand the methodology, let's take a closer look at the food and beverage category.
Food and beverage manufacturers struggle with the unique challenges of volatility in commodity prices, a high degree of seasonal fluctuations from both the supply and demand sides, and perishability of products, as well as regional food profiles that make global management challenging. The orbit chart in Figure 4 illustrates the patterns for inventory turns and operating margin performance within the food and beverage industry for a group of industry leaders. As can be seen in Figure 5, which looks at four companies from within that group, General Mills operates at a higher level of performance than the other three competitors in both operating margin and inventory turns. (The asterisks indicate the starting year.) But as shown in Figure 6, Hershey is achieving the greatest improvement.
The better the supply chain, the tougher it is to drive improvement. So, while we could debate whether the top performer is General Mills (which operates in the top 20 percent on operating margin and inventory turns and shows slow improvement) or Hershey (which shows the greatest improvement), what is clear is that Conagra, Hillshire Brands, Kellogg, and Maple Leaf Foods are not among the top performers in terms of improvements.
Improvement needs to be looked at together with performance. When we do this, as shown in Figure 7, we find that General Mills achieves both above-average performance for the period in inventory turns, operating margin, and return on invested capital, and is making year-over-year improvement in supply chain performance ahead of its peer group.
A measure of excellence
Supply chain leaders want to excel. They need to measure performance improvement, but due to the complexities of the metrics, this is harder to do than many think. Averages only tell part of the story.
We find that the patterns representing year-over-year performance are a better indicator of supply chain excellence than single measurements presented in year-by-year snapshots. The Supply Chain Index is a measurement of supply chain improvement and is a useful methodology for comparing the progress of companies within a peer group. As such, it is a helpful tool for the supply chain team to use to gauge supply chain potential, or for defining reasonable targets based on a feasible rate of improvement.
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.