by Elizabeth Hines | May 11, 2016 | Blog, Strategy, Supply Chain
If Seneca the Elder could have peered into the future, shock is likely too weak of a word to describe his reaction. The Roman rhetorician is credited for being among the first to complain about the overload of information when he, in the 1st century AD, lamented that the abundance of books had become a “distraction.”
Around 1440 AD, another round of complaints erupted with the invention of the printing press. Overwhelmed by the sheer amount of new information, scholars of the Gutenberg era found the proliferation of printed materials too difficult to manage.
Fast-forward a few centuries and you find articles titled “Death by Information Overload.” Published in 2009 by Harvard Business Review, the article makes a case that we’ve heard countless times over the past few years: We are drowning in a flood of data.
However, the writer, Paul Hemp, also makes a point that I want to focus on:
There’s hope, though. Innovative tools and techniques promise relief for those of us struggling with information inundation. Some are technological solutions—software that automatically sorts and prioritizes incoming e-mail, for instance—designed to regulate or divert the deluge. Others prevent people from drowning by getting them to change the way they behave and think. Who knows: Maybe someday even I will enjoy swimming in the powerful currents of information that now threaten to pull me under.
Nearly two years ago, I argued in this space that vendors would be wise to spend less time on their sales pitch and more time presenting data in a digestible format, ensuring compatibility with the end-user’s legacy systems, and aligning the solution with the end-user’s key performance indicators (KPIs).
Few people actually object to the value of data, and most are well informed of its potential impact, according to several surveys. Collected in a warehouse environment, data can profoundly boost productivity, safety, and inventory accuracy.
The issue that many still need to address is that all too often the step from collecting data to letting it drive decisions is more than the average organization can handle. Surveys show a surprising number of companies report they are either wary of advanced analytics tools or have failed to leverage the technology. Data generated by sensor-enabled technology, for example, does little good unless the end-user knows how to interpret and act on it.
But there are signs vendors are responding to the demand for user-friendly data. Just as you do not expect to sort through masses of data to find out how fast you are driving, leading vendors are eliminating and simplifying steps to help end users get the information that they are looking for without time-consuming analysis. New widgets or apps designed to consolidate data coming off multiple sensors will make data collection in the warehouse more accessible, and, as a result, more likely to lead to operational improvements.
Then talk of data overload may quiet down — until the next wave of disruptive innovation hits, that is.
What signs, if any, have you seen of more user-friendly data?
This article originally appeared in EBN Online.
by Elizabeth Hines | May 10, 2016 | Blog, Strategy, Supply Chain
Increasing operational expenses to avoid capital expenditures that would boost warehouse capacity and functionality might end up costing you more in the long run.
Consider this scenario: Demand is up and projected to grow for your products. But you are running out of space in your distribution center. Although you realize modernizing your distribution center to increase productivity would make sense, you resort to the seemingly more affordable solution — hiring more workers.
While many companies may balk at the upfront cost of investing in, for example, warehouse automation technology, holding off on upgrading in the name of saving money can become a costly long-term strategy.
Don’t get me wrong. Automation is not always the answer to tackling issues that stem from rapid growth, but companies need to be aware that doing nothing also comes at a cost. Increasing operational expenses to avoid capital expenditures that would boost warehouse capacity and functionality is generally not a good idea. More workers on the floor mean more congestion and delays, in addition to increasing the risk of higher turnover rates, as new employees are more likely to move on than longer-term associates.
In the end, if your productivity and order fulfillment suffer as a result of your inaction, so will your customer relationships.
FORTE, a Swisslog Company, made the following observation in SupplyChain 24/7:
Businesses routinely choose to not invest in distribution without giving careful consideration to the impact on operational costs and missed business opportunities. They thoroughly evaluate whether to purchase material handling equipment, warehouse software and distribution buildings. The same scrutiny should be applied to real and often hidden expenses and the opportunity costs of the option to do nothing.
In FORTE’s case, the company came to the “rescue” of a retailer who had planned to respond to a significant increase in demand and SKUs by hiring more workers to the tune of $900,000 to $3 million per year. Although labor costs would more than double, the retailer would still struggle to fulfill and deliver new orders on time. After much debate, senior management decided to spend $5 million on new material handling equipment and software to meet current and future demand.
So what issues can arise from the do-nothing strategy?
Well, take your pick among unwanted scenarios: Bottlenecks in pick zones; safety concerns as a result of increased congestion; double-handling due to an inability to confirm picks; discrepancies in putaway, replenishment, and picking stemming from the lack of automatic data capture and real-time tracking; and dropping productivity as employees, among other things, have to travel further to retrieve items.
If you have reached a point where you miss or ship incorrect orders, and adding labor seems to only compound the challenges, it is time to take a serious look at your priorities. Perhaps, investing in automation is finally justified?
This post originally appeared in EBN Online.
Related posts:
by Elizabeth Hines | Mar 14, 2016 | Blog, Strategy, Supply Chain
There is no easy answer to the burning question why the onshoring movement refuses to truly take off.
The issue of onshoring is frequently painted in black and white. While the media often likens the return of companies to the United States from overseas to a stampede, skeptics may be too quick to downplay the positive impact of the recent movement in manufacturing.
Nevertheless, those who were looking for a true Renaissance of American manufacturing have reason, at least so far, to be disappointed. Even among some high-profile companies — most notably Apple and GE — that announced their return with great fanfare, reality has set in. GE has battled high turnover rates at its re-opened Kentucky plants, as workers reportedly refused to perform certain tasks, while Apple has been stumped by the shortage of engineers.
Although the number of companies bringing production back home has risen significantly in recent years — from 64 in 2011 to 300 in 2014 — they are still outnumbered by those going in the opposite direction.
However, the issue is more complex than net gains or losses. According to new research by Morris Cohen, a Wharton School professor of operations and information management, and Hau L. Lee at Stanford University, “There is an unprecedented amount of restructuring going on.” In some cases, departments within the same company are onshoring and outsourcing at the same time, each weighing the perceived pros and cons differently.
In a Knowledge@Wharton interview, Cohen elaborated on the trend: “I’m going to go to China. I’m coming back from China. The same company simultaneously is making what seemed to be opposing decisions. And when you asked them why, they would give the same reasons. It’s because of labor costs. It’s because of market access. It’s because of this and that.”
In fact, they found there appears to be no dominant reason why companies make one decision or another in favor of onshoring or staying put.
And barriers seem to remain the same as when the onshoring movement began to gain momentum: The lack of skilled workers, coupled with an aging workforce, still rank high on the list of negatives. The rapid pace of offshoring in 1990s and early 2000s made younger generations lose faith in the viability of a manufacturing career.
Patrick Van den Bossche, the Americas lead partner at A.T. Kearney’s Strategic Operations Practice — which released its inaugural Reshoring Index last year — explained the problem on Manufacturing.net: “Think about it — if you have a kid in school, with everything that happened in the last few years, with manufacturing moving overseas as fast as it did, would you feel comfortable to tell your kid to develop a career in manufacturing? I don’t think so.”
At the same time, countries like China, Brazil, and Eastern Europe, previously known for their low-skilled labor, are quickly improving and investing in high-tech industries. With a greater pool of skilled workers abroad, a move back to the United States will seem less urgent. And with the arrival of robotics, the issue of labor costs will likely take on even less significance.
So the big question is, how should the United States stand up to the competition? What do you think?
A version of this article previously appeared on EBN Online.
by Elizabeth Hines | Mar 10, 2016 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain, Talent
Manufacturing could offer a career with upward potential for STEM students at low-profile colleges.
The college graduates of 2015 were the most indebted ever — until the next round of grads wave their diplomas in the spring. But is sinking deep into debt really the ticket to a great career? If you have the means (and brains) to invest in an Ivy League degree, all stats seem to indicate you get ample payback for the $200,000-plus expense.
But among those high school grads who may not qualify for generous financial aid packages and at the same time cannot afford — or even want — an Ivy League degree, there are still lucrative options, especially if they study science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing, for example, is well known. While as many as 60% to 70% of executives say their current employees lack sufficient skills in technology, computer, and math, the problem is exacerbated by the lack of qualified job prospects — an expected 2 million manufacturing jobs will go unfilled due to the talent gap during the next decade, according to a Deloitte study.
As I’ve said before, herein lies opportunity. There is no reason seeking a career in manufacturing should break the bank if students weigh their choices wisely. Picking a low-profile school may “pay off big both in terms of getting a good job and salary,”according to John Walsik, a Forbes contributor and author of The Debt-Free Degree.
The opportunity is best illustrated by Business Insider’s recent list of underrated colleges in America in which the US News and World Report’s rankings of the best universities was compared with PayScale’s 2015-2016 College Salary Report. Rather than pursuing degrees from the highest rated schools, high school grads should also consider schools that, although ranked relatively low on the US News list, yield high mid-career salaries.
Interestingly, Missouri University of Science and Technology, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and University of Massachusetts at Lowell, known for their science and engineering programs, all ranked in the top 5 (Pace University in New York City topped the list), with mid-career median salaries ranging from $94,700 to $102,000. Within six months of graduation, for example, 80% of New Jersey Institute of Technology graduates were either employed — top employers include IBM and ExxonMobil — or enrolled in graduate programs.
A college degree from a prestigious school means little unless your earnings quickly make it worthwhile. If only manufacturing could shake its lackluster reputation, a growing number of students may discover it holds the key to a career with a lot of upward potential — without necessarily going into big debt.
What is your take on the cost of college versus the payoff?
A version of this post previously appeared at EBN Online.
by Elizabeth Hines | Feb 29, 2016 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
As companies “tiptoe” back to the United States from overseas, the “Made in USA” label should grow more common. However, ambiguous rules are costing some manufacturers hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and legal fees. So what’s the problem? The coveted “Made in USA” does not always mean the same thing to companies as to the Federal Trade Commission.
Although most cases stem from California, where every single component must be sourced domestically to earn the right to be advertised as American-made, the ambiguity of FTC’s rules is likely to bring more lawsuits nationwide. FTC rules state the “Made in USA” label can only go on goods that are “all or virtually all” made in the United States. But how should companies interpret “virtually?”
The latest to be slapped with a list of reprimands by the FTC is none other than Walmart, which recently was asked to not only remove “Made in USA” logos from all product listings, but also the country-of-origin information from all product specifications (unless required by law) and U.S.-origin claims that appear in product descriptions or titles. Walmart is also required to clear advertisement copy submitted by suppliers of any USA-origin claims.
A giant like Walmart can certainly handle adjustments to its Investing in America Jobs Program — redesigned logos will now disclose the percentage of U.S. content in the product — and transparency is obviously fundamentally important in sourcing and product advertisements. But the fact still remains: Companies can only guess what qualifies as U.S.-made. As reported by Supply Chain Digest, some have taken it upon themselves to include 70 percent of domestically made components before making any “Made in USA” claims.
The dysfunction is perhaps best illustrated by the case of Lifetime Products, whose basketball hoops ended up in the spotlight last fall when two consumer lawsuits claimed they were falsely labeled. Although the hoops are, to quote the Wall Street Journal, “made of parts that are almost entirely cut, shaped, painted and assembled” at the company’s sprawling Utah factory, some bolts and the net were imported from China. The costs were staggering, with the legal fees alone adding up to $535,000, and the plaintiff’s attorney’s receiving $485,000.
Sourcing every single component domestically is no easy feat, especially for companies that just returned production from overseas and want to capitalize on the move with the “Made in USA” label. After so many years of outsourcing, it will take time to rebuild the U.S. supplier base as well as upgrading aging manufacturing equipment to meet today’s demand for speed and agility.
Lasko Products Inc., a family-owned company based in West Chester, Pa., is one example of a producer that can no longer find domestic suppliers of small electric motors. The company’s electric fans are sold at Walmart, which has discovered the effort to buy more U.S.-made products has proved particularly difficult when it comes to electrical devices.
Let’s hope the FTC can at least clarify the rules.
What do you think is a reasonable definition of “Made in USA?”
A version of this article was previously published on EBN Online.
