I spent this weekend in Miami (OK, Coral Gables) teaching the core Ops class for an executive MBA section. One of the topics we usually cover in the core (especially with execs) is the cash-to-cash cycle. The cash-to-cash cycle (intuitively) measures how long it takes a firm to capture the gain on its investment in inventory. Mathematically, it consists of days of inventory plus days of accounts receivable minus days of accounts payable. Thus when a firm purchases inventory, it takes a while for those goods to sell. It may then need to wait to collect cash from its customers. However, it may get credit from its suppliers so time in inventory may be offset by the time it has to pay its suppliers. Taken together, these measures give an idea of how effectively a firm uses its working capital. It also may suggest where the firm should target improvement. For example, benchmarking might show that its accounts receivable is out of whack with industry norms so that could be a real opportunity to pursue.
As I said, I had to teach this stuff this weekend. Fortuitously for me, Supply Chain Insights just happened to publish a whole report on the cash-to-cash cycle packed with data and eye candy (Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: A Closer Look at the Cash-To-Cash Cycle (2000-2012), Nov 11). To start with, here is some data on how cash-to-cash cycles vary across industries and over time.
Read Full Post »
If you look at what it costs an automaker to build a vehicle, purchased components are going to represent a big, big chunk. How an automaker deals with its suppliers and how it chooses just who is going to make what is then critical to its overall success. Automotive News has a pair of stories that highlight how two carmakers are taking somewhat different approaches to managing purchasing.
First up is Chrysler which is opting for a kinder, gentler approach to sourcing. Specifically, it is floating the idea of assigning some parts without putting them out to bid (Chrysler pilots no-bid contracts on new minivan, Aug 5). Essentially, Chrysler is willing to guarantee that a supplier gets the work if it is willing to share a significant amount of financial data.
Chrysler Group is using its next minivan to pilot a collaborative, no-bid purchasing system that guarantees favored suppliers a profit but requires them to open up their financial books. …
The presourcing arrangements between an automaker and supplier are designed to allow both to cut engineering costs, build trust and improve long-term planning. They are common among suppliers at Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp., but haven’t caught on among domestic suppliers. …
Long-term, no-bid agreements give suppliers more predictable revenue, allowing them to invest with reduced risk. And suppliers say they provide their best technology to automakers that are loyal to them and offer the best profit opportunities.
For automakers, the no-bid agreements help ensure an uninterrupted flow of parts and access to a supplier’s best technology.
Read Full Post »
A few months ago we had a post about how shipping containers have impacted supply chains and global trade. Today we have a longer piece from Nautilus on the history of shipping containers as well as some current trends in global shipping (The Box That Built the Modern World, Jul 25). I have three take aways from reading the article. First, everyone should read The Box by Marc Levinson because (a) it’s a good book and (b) it seems that no one can write about containerized shipping without more-or-less admitting that Mr. Levinson saved them a lot of effort in researching the topic.
The second point is that the article provides a nice illustration of how slapping stuff in containers can dramatically drive down shipping costs.
To get a sense of how the system works, imagine one of the containers aboard the Hong Kong Express, which is owned by German shipping giant Hapag-Lloyd. Asked to trace a product through a typical container voyage, Hapag-Lloyd spokesman Rainer Horn suggests a T-shirt sewn at a factory near Beijing, the kind you might buy at H&M.
Tagged, folded, and boxed, the T-shirt would be “stuffed” into a container with 33,999 identical shirts at the factory. Once sealed with a plastic tag and listed on a computerized manifest, the merchandise could pass through nearly three dozen steps before arriving at a discount clothing retailer’s distribution center near Munich. There’s the trucker who moves the box to a waiting ship in Xinjiang, the feeder ship that moves it to Singapore to be loaded onto a bigger Europe-bound freighter, the crane operator in Hamburg, customs officials, train engineers, and more.
Yet the container’s uniformity smooths each step of the way. Trucks and trains are fitted to haul the identical boxes; cranes are designed to lift the same thing over and over. The total time in transit for a typical box from a Chinese factory to a customer in Europe might be as little as 35 days. Cost per shirt? “Less than one U.S. cent,” Horn says. “It doesn’t matter anymore where you produce something now, because transport costs aren’t important.”
Read Full Post »
Posted in eCommerce, Focus, Logistics, Operations Strategy, Supply Chain, tagged Amazon, eCommerce, Logistics, Operations Strategy, Supply Chain, Wal-Mart on June 26, 2013 |
4 Comments »
How should Wal-Mart fill web orders? That seems like a straightforward question. And, given that Wal-Mart sold over $7 billion of stuff on the web last year, you would think they would have figured that out by now. Still as the Wall Street Journal tells it, the retail giant is still working through how best to fill orders (Wal-Mart’s E-Stumble With Amazon, Jun 19).
E-commerce at Wal-Mart is run as a distinct business, with its own headquarters, CEO and merchants who buy items specifically for the website. Every year, executives would start a “five-year planning exercise, but the plans were never executed and management would say the sales weren’t there to justify the investment capital,” says a former online-division executive. “Even now e-commerce is a rounding error in the U.S. market.” Wal-Mart said it expects $10 billion in online sales this year, which would amount to about 2% of its $469 billion in annual revenue.
As Wal-Mart’s online orders grew, it turned to makeshift spaces carved out of store-serving distribution centers and third-party warehouse operators to help handle the load. The extra layer added to its costs. Wal-Mart’s online shipping can cost $5 to $7 per parcel, while Amazon averages $3 to $4 per parcel, analysts say—a big difference considering some of Wal-Mart’s popular purchases are low-cost items like $10 packs of underwear.
As the quotes make clear, this is all about how to match Amazon so Wal-Mart remains relevant as more transactions move on-line. To put the challenge in perspective, check out this graphic of Amazon’s distribution network.
Read Full Post »
Have you ever thought about shipping containers? If you are like most people, you probably haven’t. But they are a remarkable accomplishment. They greatly simplify loading ships so longshoremen no longer need to manipulate odd-sized shipments. Throw in that they can be used across different modes of transportation so goods can be put on a train then a boat and then a truck without being unpacked and you have real game changer. As the chart below shows (from The humble hero, The Economist, May 18), the productivity gains they enable are remarkable.
So shipping containers have made shipping a lot cheaper, which should make longer supply chains more affordable. But are containers really responsible for the growth in global trade? That is, containerized shipping has risen dramatically over the last several decades but that period has also seen a significant reduction in trade barriers. Could it be that lower tariffs and such are what really drives trade while containers are, if you will, just along for the ride? (more…)
Read Full Post »
So how much innovation can there be in supply chain design for cut flowers? Once the industry globalizes (as it has), it would seem that airfreight is the only option. Customers value freshness and cut flowers are the essence of a perishable flower. However, there may be more room for process changes than you would think as there is a trend of shipping flowers by sea (Fresh-Cut Flowers, Shipped by Sea?, Wall Street Journal, May 11).
The delicate business of transporting fresh-cut flowers from field to vase is being quietly rearranged, with more and more blooms taking a slow steam by sea from South America and Africa instead of being whisked by air.
Global cut-flower sales approached $14 billion last year and most move by cargo plane, but high jet-fuel costs and improvements in chilling technology are prompting a shift to more ocean shipping, particularly for imports to Europe.
Ocean transport costs can be half those of airfreight, an important consideration for price-conscious supermarkets and florists. Mom is unlikely to notice the difference in her Mother’s Day bouquet. Proponents say certain roses, carnations and other hearty varieties show no ill effects from the sea voyages spent in refrigerated containers a degree or two above freezing.
According to the article, some industry participants say that ocean shipping could account for a significant chunk of the market in coming years. Currently, airfreight accounts for 99% of shipments.
Read Full Post »
A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow so it is not surprising that firms would prefer to defer paying suppliers for as long as possible. As the Wall Street Journal tells it, many large firms like Procter & Gamble and DuPont are working to redefine “as long as possible” when it comes accounts payable (P&G, Big Companies Pinch Suppliers on Payments, Apr 16).
What began as a way to preserve cash when markets dried up a few years ago has become a means of freeing up money to fund expansions, buy back stock and support dividend payouts at a time of lackluster sales growth and shrinking profit margins.
P&G is actually late to this game. It currently pays its bills on average within 45 days, faster than the 60 to 100 days that other consumer products makers and large companies in other industries generally take, according to industry experts. The company is looking to move its payment terms to 75 days and recently started negotiations with suppliers, people familiar with the matter said.
Read Full Post »
The Wall Street Journal had a pair of recent article that touch on how the business of schlepping goods from Point A to Point B has been evolving in the US market. The first deals with the booming business of railroads. The major US railroads have been on a spending boom (Boom Times on the Tracks: Rail Capacity, Spending Soar, Mar 26). See the graph at right.
Just where has that money been going? To expanding track, enlarging tunnels, replacing bridges, and adding locomotives and cars. The emphasis has, in part, been on increasing the speed and reliability of trains in serving customers such as UPS.
In the past decade, though, under pressure from customers like UPS, trains have become more dependable. UPS “trained us in what it means to perform to their very high standards,” says Mr. Rose at BNSF. “I’m sure there were many times they were very frustrated.”
“I don’t know if we’re the largest customer [of the railroads] but I would tell you we’re certainly the most demanding,” says Ken Buenker, a vice president in UPS’s Corporate Transportation Group. UPS’s goal is an on-time arrival rate of 99.5%, he says. “So think about how much you risk with a train.” One breakdown could delay many deliveries.
Railroads used technology and strategy to tackle such problems. They used sensors to detect mechanical issues before they caused delays. They developed their own version of the airline “hub and spoke system” and organized shipments in trains all bound for the same destination. The latter move eliminated the time- and labor-wasting stops to break trains apart and reset them. It also paved the way for longer and speedier itineraries. Railroads “are always talking about efficiency and speed,” says Mr. Buenker. “The velocity of the network is really key for them.”
Read Full Post »
Last week I posted on making toys in the US; this week it’s apparel — specifically, T-shirts and sweatshirts. Let starts with sweatshirts and a firm called American Giant. The story starts back in December with an article in Slate describing the company’s business model and extolling the wonders of its product (This Is the Greatest Hoodie Ever Made, Dec 4, 2012). In effect, American Giant uses technology to cut its distribution cost and rolls a good chunk of the savings into offering a superior product.
In the 1970s, when the fashion industry morphed into a mass-market business dominated by mall stores, its marketing and distribution costs began to skyrocket. To keep retail prices down, companies began to shrink the price of producing clothes. Today, when you buy a hooded sweatshirt, most of your money is going to the retailer, the brand, and the various buyers that shuttle the garment between the two. The item itself costs very little to make—a $50 hoodie at the Gap likely costs about $6 or $7 to produce at an Asian manufacturing facility.
American Giant has found a loophole in the process. The loophole allows Winthrop to spend a lot more time and money producing his clothes than his competitors do. …
American Giant doesn’t maintain a storefront, and it doesn’t deal with middlemen. By selling garments directly from its factory via the Web, American Giant can avoid the distribution costs baked into most other clothes. …
But there is really no comparison between American Giant’s hoodie and the competition. It looks better and feels substantially more durable—Winthrop says it will last a lifetime. When you wear this hoodie, you’ll wonder why all other clothes aren’t made this well. And when you hear about how American Giant produced it, it’s hard not to conclude that one day, they all may be.
OK, so what do you think happens when such glowing press hits the web a few weeks before Christmas? Right, they sell out of everything. Here is a BBC report how they got hit by a tsunami of orders (American Giant: The problems of being an overnight success, Mar 10).
Read Full Post »