Showing posts with label supplier relationship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supplier relationship. Show all posts

Friday, July 27, 2012

Key Steps to Designing an Effective Supply Strategy


Identifying the key steps to designing an effective supply strategy

Developing a supply strategy is a process that when integrated with a firm’s other business processes, contributes to a firm’s overall goals of competitive advantage and profitability.  A simple, but effective purchasing portfolio model may be constructed using a supply segmentation technique that classifies products or services to be sourced in order to formulate distinctive supply strategies for each.  Although  the specific supply strategies, tactics, and supply management approaches developed will be balanced and  tailored to an individual firm’s needs, certain basic steps are common to their development.

The first step is to categorize the types products and/or services to be sourced.  Products are evaluated on the basis of the internal “risk” a company would encounter if the item were no longer available or of low quality, followed by an assessment of each item’s “value” (both monetary and intrinsic) to the company.  The value of a relatively low-cost item might be high when it adds significant value to the organization’s output.  This could be because it makes up a high proportion of the output (for example, raw fruit juice used by a fruit juice maker) or because it has a high impact on quality (for example, the cloth used by a high-end clothing manufacturer).  A detailed “spend analysis” that is aggregated across  divisions, strategic business units, and suppliers should also be developed for all sourced items.  This helps define key spend categories and assess impact on a firm’s profitability.

The next step is to graph each unit or group of units on a chart on the basis of two dimensions:  supply market complexity and the cost/value of each unit.  Each dimension has two possible values, “high” and “low.”  The horizontal (X) axis represents cost/value (measured as the total annual dollar amount spent on each) and the vertical (Y) axis represents market complexity.  Market complexity is determined, in part, by the number of suppliers, available capacity,  product specifications (unique or standard), and availability of substitutes.  An upscale specialty jeweler such as Tiffany’s would face a highly “complex” market with few suppliers, limited capacity, unique product specifications, and no available substitute products, whereas a mall-environment jewelry store would deal in a simple or low- complexity market with numerous suppliers and substitute products available. Market analysis helps a firm assess the current supply market structure and available purchasing options  and supply risks, as well as analyze trends and forecast future supply problems.

After completing the market analysis, the previously classified products/product groups can be segmented on a purchasing portfolio matrix consisting of four quadrants that represent distinctively different supply environments:

Quadrant I, “tactical” (low market complexity,  low cost/value);
Quadrant II, “leverage” (low market complexity,  high cost/value);
Quadrant III, “critical” (high market complexity, low cost/value); and
Quadrant IV, “strategic” (high market complexity, high cost/value).

 The items in each quadrant require development of specific supply management goals and strategies of varying complexity.  For example, the supply management focus on items in the strategic quadrant is on increasing competitive advantage through strong buyer-supplier relationships such as strategic alliances, joint ventures, and sole sourcing and through medium- to long-term supply contracts.  Mutual trust provides access to new technology that is important for developing value-ads that increase customer satisfaction and loyalty.  In contrast, the standardized, generic products in the high-volume leverage quadrant do not require long-term supply contracts or supplier partnering strategies because products and suppliers are interchangeable and supply risk is minimal.  With a goal of decreasing unit costs and increasing profit margins to contribute to corporate profitability, managers can utilize traditional supply strategies.  These include aggressively seeking lower-cost suppliers from a large supply base, finding substitute products,  and leveraging buying power to obtain volume discounts and competitive bids.

Distinctive differences may also be found in the supply market characteristics of the critical and tactical quadrants, with a corresponding adjustment of  supply management goals and supply strategies.   To illustrate, the supply risk of items in the low-value critical quadrant is high, so management’s goal is to minimize supply disruptions even if additional cost is required.  Strategies to assure supply may entail keeping extra stock and developing contingency plans to deal with  unexpected situations.  When possible, ways should be found to move critical items into the tactical quadrant to reduce their supply risk.  In the tactical quadrant, which consists of low-value, non-critical items, supply management’s emphasis is on reducing acquisition costs  that may consume up to 80 percent of a purchasing department’s time.  Strategies include utilizing integrated supplier relationships such as electronic data interchange and supplier-managed inventory systems to reduce transaction and logistics costs in this category.

Each stage of the supply segmentation technique is an important building block in the systematic process of constructing a purchasing portfolio analysis model based on the relationship between market complexity and cost/value.  The portfolio matrix forms a simple, but clearly focused framework for analyzing supply environments in order to develop feasible supply strategies for the sourcing of products in each quadrant.  This model presents a multi-stage process of developing supply strategies that minimize a firm’s supply risk and highlight opportunities to improve a firm’s overall buying position not only in the short term, but also in the long term.  As such, it encourages CEO’s to look at the “big picture,” and it changes the traditional operating perspective of “purchasing” to one of strategic supply management.

Copyright 2012.  James L. Alyea.  All Rights Reserved.

For more information, please contact Jimmy Alyea:

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Supply Chain Flexibility


Case Study Summary by Jimmy Alyea

Customer expectations in the online retail world are presenting supply chain professionals with a paradox, e.g., “how to do more for less.”  Today’s e-commerce customers are able to access an unlimited number and variety of products that they expect to be shipped quickly and free.  In order to stay relevant and profitable, many online retailers face the complex challenge of having to build or reorganize supply chain infrastructures that are flexible enough to meet the ever-growing expectations of consumers.  This commitment to customer satisfaction is hindered by rapid growth of online retail sales and unpredictable consumer demand due to ongoing financial uncertainty.  The dilemma of retailers is to balance these drivers against a central priority of reducing or controlling supply chain costs.

Keeping the customer happy
Raised consumer expectations of faster, free delivery and increased cross-channel services puts pressure on e-commerce retailers to provide more for less to differentiate a brand and stay competitive.  One low-cost solution is to implement process mapping of the order cycle to look for time inefficiencies in each element of the delivery process.  A more capital-intensive option is to put additional distribution nodes in the network.  Raised customer expectations also present retailers with the challenge of providing seamless cross-channel services.  The key to successfully transferring brand experience between channels is to have the visibility and business intelligence tools necessary to coordinate the interaction in a cost-efficient way.  Failure to implement initiatives to meet customers’ perceived standards can negatively impact sales, but fulfilling them is not without risk.

Negotiating peaks and valleys.   
To successfully meet customer demand, online retailers must be able to negotiate the differences between peak and off-peak demand.   Although many feel competent to handle predictable peaks and dips, they are challenged to handle demand volatility caused by the impact of economic uncertainty.  Rapid shifts in consumer confidence, combined with the lengthy time delay from when forecasts are made, highlight the importance of supply chain agility.  Retailers can either over-stock or under-stock, but they must be adequately prepared to minimize the risks of doing so.  This would include utilizing relevant supply chain metrics, close collaboration between sales and operations planning, and seeking collaborative opportunities with other retailers.  Such collaboration can be facilitated by third-party logistics companies that provide access to shared-use facilities.

Finding a flexible structure
The online retailers interviewed were focused on a long-term growth strategy as part of their supply chain plans.  Redesigning the retail supply chain provides the opportunity to build flexibility into the structures and processes needed to grow, as well as the means to get closer to the customer.  One way to do this is to utilize shared-use facilities which can provide cost efficiency and agility to support peak management and demand fluctuations.  To be viable, providers of shared-used facilities need to offer customizable services to facilitate retailers’ control of order cycle times and the delivery experience.  Online retailers must also have the right systems in place to allocate stock efficiently between channels and to reduce cross-channel conflicts and the impact of sudden demand peaks in one channel.

Conclusion
Expanding a retail business in the growing e-commerce world requires aligning and integrating traditional and e-commerce channels and systems to meet customer expectations.  As customers increasingly expect fast, free delivery and seamless cross-channel services, retailers are striving to meet these demands in order to stay competitive.  Growing retailers without an established network must decide whether to make internal adjustments to their supply chain structure or outsource to a third-party logistics provider.  They must also deal with uncertain economic times and rapidly changing technology.  With a goal of flexibility, outsourcing provides immediate gains in speed, agility, and scalability of facilities and people.  Making the right decisions at the supply chain level helps increase turnaround times, balance seasonal fluctuation, and provide a supply chain infrastructure that facilitates rapid growth.

Copyright 2012 James L. Alyea. All Rights Reserved.


Case Summary Reference:
www.exel.com

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Identifying Procurement Contract Risk


This case study’s thesis is that “the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) was justified in terminating for default an indefinite-delivery purchase order (IDPO) contract at a firm fixed price (FFP) when New Era Contract Sales (New Era) failed to supply coupling tubes as required by a June 29, 2006, delivery order.

Contract performance. 
When New Era, a government contractor, made delivery on a July 6, 2004, IDPO received from DSCC for coupling tubes, a contract was formed.  The contract obligated New Era to supply parts for two years at a firm fixed price.  New Era’s pricing to DSCC was based on a two-year quote from its supplier, Harrison.  New Era’s contract with DSCC contained a standard supply contract default clause but no price adjustment clause.

When New Era received DSCC’s second IDPO on June 30, 2006, it found that Harrison had been sold and its new owner would not honor the original price quote.  On July 5, 2006, New Era asked DSCC to cancel its contract with no liability for either party because its supplier refused to honor the quoted pricing due to an increase in material costs.  When DSCC refused, New Era asked to negotiate a new price based on a new supplier’s higher price quote.  DSCC again refused and terminated the contract for default when New Era did not fill the order.  New Era appealed the decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) based on the provisions of the default clause, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.249-8.
           
FAR 52.249-8.   
The clause stated DSCC’s default contract rights but provided an exception for contractor liability if the following occurred: “If the failure to perform is caused by the default of a subcontractor at any tier, and if the cause of the default is beyond the control of both the Contractor and subcontractor, and without the fault or negligence of either . . . .unless the subcontracted supplies or services were obtainable from other sources in sufficient time for the Contractor to meet the required delivery schedule.”

New Era’s opposing view of the thesis. 
New Era believes that its nonperformance is excusable under FAR 52.249-8.  The refusal of its subcontractor’s new owner to honor the original price quoted to New Era was “beyond its [New Era’s] control and without its fault or negligence.”  Similarly, the subcontractor’s refusal to perform was also “beyond its [the subcontractor’s] control and without its fault or negligence” because Harrison had quoted an unusually low price two years ago and because the present cost of titanium had increased dramatically.  As a result, New Era’s subcontractor would have only been able to supply product from its distributor at a cost/unit of more than three times the original contract price.  New Era states that as a small business owner, it could not absorb the resulting $23,904.66 loss.

New Era also asserts that it had taken “all reasonable action” to perform the contract by looking for alternative sources from which to obtain the product in time to meet the contract delivery date.  However, since none of these alternative suppliers carried stock of the needed item and produced only on an “as-needed basis,” this option would not have enabled New Era to deliver in a timely manner.  Although DSCC offered to extend the delivery date in exchange for a $510.18 contract price reduction, New Era believed it should not have had to incur this extra cost because DSCC did not respond for eight months to New Era’s request to cancel the contract without liability because it could not perform.

Because these unforeseen circumstances regarding pricing and product availability were beyond its control, New Era asserts that it was not negligent in its nonperformance of DSCC’s June 29, 2006, order and should be discharged without liability from its contract with DSCC. 

DSCC’s supporting view of the thesis. 
New Era entered into a binding IDPO contact when it fulfilled DSCC’s July 6, 2004 delivery order, obligating itself to honor the offered prices for two years.  As the FFP contract contained no price adjustment clause, New Era accepted the risk of increased prices from its subcontractor.  Thus, New Era’s claim that a price increase was beyond both it and its subcontractor’s control was not a basis on which to abandon performance under the contract’s default clause.  New Era and its subcontractor did not take “all reasonable action” to perform because they could have provided the ordered parts, even though at a loss.

DSCC seeks affirmation from ASBCA of its decision to terminate New Era’s contract for default and to recover costs from having to reprocure from a new source.  The Board found New Era in default of the contract and affirmed DSCC’s actions and request for reimbursement for additional procurement costs.  The Board stated that renegotiating a contract because of a supplier’s price increase would defeat the purpose of a firm-fixed-price contract, which was to protect DSCC from price variations.  It also noted that DSCC had grounds for termination when New Era notified it on July 5, 2006, that it could not make delivery on DSCC’s second order. 

Implications. 
Lessons for contract managers include the importance of protecting against contract risk and of making contingency plans.  New Era should have taken the time to understand the contract terms, particularly the implications of filling the first order of an IDPO contract at a FFP, as well as the consequences of default and the lack of a price escalation clause.   It should have also locked its supplier into a contractual agreement as to pricing and the subcontractor’s liability for default, instead of depending solely upon a price quote.  New Era would have ultimately been better off had it performed the contract at a loss and then brought suit against its supplier.  Good advice for contract managers would be to expect the best but plan for the worse, and when in doubt, seek legal advice quickly before a problem escalates.

Copyright 2012 James L. Alyea. All Rights Reserved.



Case Study Reference:
“IDENTIFYING CONTRACT RISK AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING” by Jack Horan, Contract Management, Aug., 2009. Retrieved from http://www.mckennalong.com/media/site_files/1140_August%202009.pdf