by Fronetics | Jan 25, 2016 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain, Talent
We know that diversity in the workplace has value beyond enriching company culture. A McKinsey & Company report found that diverse companies financially outperform companies that are not diverse by 15%. And in terms of gender diversity, specifically, research shows that when women are in positions of leadership, companies perform better — much better.
Data shows that gender equality has improved in recent decades, such as the 15% increase of women working full time in the workforce since 1979. But there is still much progress to be made. As a recent UN Working Group mission to the US to explore discrimination against women found: “In the US, women fall behind international standards as regards [to] their public and political representation, their economic and social rights, and their health and safety protections.”
Women in manufacturing and the supply chain
We see that women in manufacturing and the supply chain haven’t been faring as well as their counterparts in other sectors. The number of women working in manufacturing is the lowest it has been since 1971. In the supply chain, men hold between 70-80% of the jobs, and we see even more disparity at the higher levels — only 5% of women hold Fortune 500 supply chain top-level positions.
Beth Ford, executive vice president and chief supply chain and operations officer at Land O’Lakes, sees the positive in these numbers: “The representation of women in this area is not where it needs to be. At the same time, it could be viewed as tremendously exciting. The opportunities are there for women.”
Where opportunity lies
So what can be done to make changes that will benefit everyone, and the bottom line?
According to a Fronetics Strategic Advisors report on women in the supply chain, “it has been put forth that women are better suited for roles in supply chain management than men. Research conducted by SCM World found that the majority of men (63%) and women (75%) believe that the natural skill sets of women differ from those of men and that these differences are advantageous for supply chain management.”
One of the biggest ways is diversify entry into the profession and a pathway to leadership. The typical trajectory to the top roles in the supply chain starts on the shop floor. These jobs tend to be more male-dominated trade work. For the supply chain to seek new talent, especially women, they must look beyond their four walls.
Since there is a lack of talent being funneled into the supply chain, companies should look more closely at universities that offer supply chain management programs. Many of these programs recruit and attract women.
There are several women (and men) working in the supply chain who are cheering for other women to join. According to an interview with Bravo Solution VP Mickey North Rizza, “While business has traditionally been a man’s world, more and more women are now in businesses. Most women by nature have been relationship-builders. They encourage, collaborate and innovate with others for the best outcome. It is only natural that these tendencies gravitate to the business world, and most importantly into supply chain.”
![[Infographic] Content Marketing in Manufacturing: What Works, What Needs Work](https://www.fronetics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Infographic-content-marketing-in-manufacturing-801x675.png)
by Fronetics | Aug 11, 2015 | Blog, Content Marketing, Manufacturing & Distribution, Marketing, Social Media, Supply Chain
Manufacturing is experiencing a graying of its industry. With millions of workers at or near retirement age, many top posts are occupied by workers who have seen radical changes in the workplace over the course of their careers. And while executives have largely embraced advances in technology to transform the operations side of manufacturing, research shows they’ve been slow to adapt marketing and sales processes using emerging digital tools and technology.
Earlier this year the Content Marketing Institute released its annual report on the current state of content marketing within the manufacturing industry. This year’s report shows that the manufacturing industry continues to make strides in leveraging digital tools for sales and marketing purposes. Still, because these efforts are fairly new, the report also captures a sense of ambiguity about these new marketing strategies, particularly when it comes to measuring program success. Other notable findings from the study reveal that more than two-thirds of manufacturers are using content marketing to build brand awareness, boost sales, and generate leads. The report also uncovers some marked changes between the most recent report and last year’s report; there has been a shift in both the way manufacturers are choosing to distribute content and their perceived effectiveness of those tactics.
Check out our Infographic for a more detailed look at the report’s findings:
Fronetics Strategic Advisors is a leading management consulting firm. Our firm works with companies to identify and execute strategies for growth and value creation.
Whether it is a wholesale food distributor seeking guidance on how to define and execute corporate strategy; a telematics firm needing high quality content on a consistent basis; a real estate firm looking for a marketing partner; or a supply chain firm in need of interim management, our clients rely on Fronetics to help them navigate through critical junctures, meet their toughest challenges, and take advantage of opportunities. We deliver high-impact results.
We advise and work with companies on their most critical issues and opportunities: strategy, marketing, organization, talent acquisition, performance management, and M&A support.
We have deep expertise and a proven track record in a broad range of industries including: supply chain, real estate, software, and logistics.
by Fronetics | Jul 14, 2015 | Blog, Logistics, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
To see lean perfected – study the NASCAR pit. In a matter of seconds, the pit crew has changed tires, wiped down the windshield, filled up fuel, and given the driver a drink of water. Everything is in the right place at the right time. If only every distribution center would run that smoothly. What’s clear is that mastering inventory levels is central to the equation of eliminating waste, but inventory management is becoming a vexing problem for some organizations – compounded by multi-channel distribution, inadequate demand forecasting, and a lack of communication among appropriate parties.
Taking a closer look at the experiences of forerunner companies in their quests to master lean inventory management might just help your company avoid these top three snags.
Failure to Adapt Business Processes
In an effort to reduce merchandise sitting around on warehouse racks, some organizations take lean too far. The problem, in this case, is one of business process rather than software. While management sees the financial impact of cutting inventory, they tend to pay less attention to how it will affect operations. The heads of distribution quite frequently are not even invited to take part in the decision and find out only when fewer cases and pallets show up at receiving. Adapting business processes to involve the managers of procurement, finance, operations, and sales and marketing, is key to maximizing efficiency. In other words, open up the silo by building it in to your formal and informal processes.
Failure to Collaborate
Even with sophisticated demand forecasting models on hand, input from all parties is needed for an accurate assessment of inventory levels. And although demand forecasting can help an organization plan around high-level “what if” scenarios, it may not always be able to break it down on a granular level or take into account the increasing number of variables associated with multi-channel distribution. Collaboration is crucial.
Failure to Align Objectives
Sometimes the answer to the issue of inventory levels is counterintuitive. Even with lean as the driving force, the notion of optimization cannot be left out. In some instances, it makes sense to increase rather than minimize inventory if it will contribute to lowering your overall supply chain costs. Your business and inventory strategies need to align.
Despite the fact that in recent years the lean revolution has hit manufacturing, many organizations, especially retailers and wholesalers, have yet to apply lean principals. And among those who do dabble in lean, the focus tends to be on suppliers upstream rather than adding value to the end customer. As more and more businesses seek to tighten the management of their inventory in order to increase efficiencies, opportunities to address end customer value will emerge. Paul A. Myerson, professor in supply chain management, identifies store- and distribution operations as prime candidates since that’s where the most waste can be cut. He writes:
Distribution is all about optimizing the trade-offs between handling costs and warehousing costs, and maximizing the warehouse’s total cube—utilizing its full volume, while maintaining low materials handling costs and minimizing travel time.
Mastery of lean management principals will come for companies that are both successful in identifying new efficiency opportunities within their existing supply chain and navigating around the pitfalls of businesses that have instituted similar inventory management techniques.
Fronetics Strategic Advisors is a leading management consulting firm. Our firm works with companies to identify and execute strategies for growth and value creation.
Whether it is a wholesale food distributor seeking guidance on how to define and execute corporate strategy; a telematics firm needing high quality content on a consistent basis; a real estate firm looking for a marketing partner; or a supply chain firm in need of interim management, our clients rely on Fronetics to help them navigate through critical junctures, meet their toughest challenges, and take advantage of opportunities. We deliver high-impact results.
We advise and work with companies on their most critical issues and opportunities: strategy, marketing, organization, talent acquisition, performance management, and M&A support.
We have deep expertise and a proven track record in a broad range of industries including: supply chain, real estate, software, and logistics.
by Jennifer Hart Yim | Jun 22, 2015 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
This article is part of a series of articles written by MBA students and graduates from the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
Melanie Payeur graduated from the University of New Hampshire in 2007 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. She has since worked in various roles supporting manufacturing and packaging operations in the food and beverage industry.
Do you know where your byproducts go?
Manufacturing often produces some sort of physical byproduct. Examples range from plastic strapping on a pallet of corrugate boxes to carbon dioxide collected off a tank of fermenting beer. Byproducts are the unspoken of and often neglected “cousin” of manufacturing.
Byproducts of manufacturing can be compared to the stage crew at a Broadway show or on a Hollywood movie set. They serve an important purpose. Without the lights, cameras, and curtains, there is no show. Similarly, without plastic strapping, a pallet of corrugate would fall over during transport because it wasn’t properly secured.
The stars of the show are the finished goods on store shelves. Just like people don’t stick around to see the name of the on-set hair-stylist when the credits roll at a movie, consumers often don’t think about the byproducts associated with the packaged food they eat or other goods they purchase. It’s possible that they don’t even know these things exist.
However, consumers are becoming more conscious of supply chain issues. Many have an awareness what Fair Trade is in association with sourcing of products such as coffee and cocoa beans. They discuss agricultural sourcing and the ethical (or not) treatment of animals raised to be part of the food chain. Even the effects of emissions and chemical waste on the environment are among topics of which many consumers have some awareness.
Plastic old, Plastic new
What about the plastic strapping on that pallet of corrugate though? Where does it go? Who even knows it exists other than the operator that cuts it off the pallet in the factory? Could it become a plastic bottle someday? Or a swing set? Maybe it will become plastic strapping again?
While countless other types of byproducts exist, plastic is a particularly interesting example. Fluctuations in the price of petroleum are directly correlated to the price of brand new, non- recycled plastic pellets. It is completely possible, and often realistic, that it is less expensive to create brand new plastic strapping than it is to recycle old strapping.
Trailer Bags and Trash Bowls
Creative and novel uses of byproducts are happening today. One example is a Swiss company called Freitag who produces trendy messenger bags, wallets, and purses from old side panel tarps (popular on tractor trailers in Europe). At the end of their useful life on the road, these tarps are purchased by Freitag and sewn into functional accessories.
Another example specifically related to plastic are Garbage Bowls made famous by Food Network host, Rachael Ray. These bowls are made from recycled pieces of broken plates. There’s a byproduct in there somewhere!
While these are great examples of repurposing byproducts into something new, the truth is that Freitag was originally looking for a material that would create a durable and functional product. Lucky for them, reusing something that might have otherwise been thrown away is a great marketing story. They charge an average of $200 for a standard messenger bag. Is it realistic that the reverse situation can create profits? Can we find another use for production process byproducts which would create a trendy or otherwise highly desirable product?
Can we do better than throwing our byproducts away?
If it’s not a company’s core competency, it probably shouldn’t get into the business of designing handbags. However, as supply chain professionals, we should understand all of the byproducts of our manufacturing process; especially those related to materials that we source as inputs, like plastic strapping.
It is as important to look at the waste stream from our process as it is to examine how we source raw materials. Are we recycling our byproducts? Is there someone who is looking for our ‘trash’ as an input to their process? Do we have the opportunity to have a profitable side business as a coincidental supplier to someone else? At the very least, can we do better than throwing our byproducts away?
An example of success can be seen in the food manufacturing industry. Some companies donate or sell their byproducts to the Bakery Feeds Program. This organization creates animal feed out of food byproducts such as misshapen cupcakes and other edible process waste. It might be cost neutral to dispose of waste in this way, but that is better than otherwise paying for disposal.
I challenge you to examine the waste streams associated with your process. Identify where at least one of your byproducts could go. From here to there and there to here, your byproducts could end up anywhere.
by Jennifer Hart Yim | Jun 18, 2015 | Blog, Logistics, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
This article is part of a series of articles written by MBA students and graduates from the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
Ben Minerd received his B.S. in Computer Engineering from the University of New Hampshire in 2011 and will be completing his MBA from UNH in May 2015. When not working as a systems engineer, Ben enjoys skiing, hiking, and flying drones.
Some of you technologically curious readers may be familiar with Moore’s Law which predicted that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit would double every two years. What all that nerd speak (as a nerd I can use that phrase) boils down to is that the processing capability of electronic chips is increasing at a crazy rate. Like, scary fast.
On the flip side, electronics are really cheap these days. Yes, the $10,000 Apple Watch might be a tad pricey, but I’m talking about the industry as a whole. You can buy a computer that fits in your pocket for $200 that is many hundreds, maybe thousands, of times more powerful than my first computer and I’m one of those whiny millennial youngsters.
How can consumer electronics companies afford to sell their scary fast devices this cheaply? One reason is that the devices are being made by other devices (cue ominous music), as automation and electronics manufacturing are natural complements of each other. But another big factor in the cheap tech equation is the ever-increasing separation of technology development from technology manufacturing.
Contract Manufacturing
Big name companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are doing less and less of their own widget building these days in favor of contract manufacturing (or CM). Contract manufacturing is essentially the outsourcing of your products’ fabrication and assembly to some other company (who is hopefully better at it than you are).
In theory, using a contract manufacturer should lower your costs and give you access to capabilities that you wouldn’t have access to otherwise. This is especially true of small businesses looking to produce physical goods (versus intangibles like software), where the up-front cost of building your own factory is immense and maybe even a non-starter. Or maybe you’re a big tech company who isn’t good at making hardware (ahem, Google) and you want to stick to your core competencies.
Whatever your reason, contract manufacturing is the unicorn that will slash your costs with its rainbow laser beam eyes. Well, maybe not entirely.
Hidden Costs
To loosely paraphrase Pee-wee Herman, every decision we make in business has a big ‘but’. For the economist reader, you can equate this with TANSTAAFL—There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. One action almost always leads to some other potentially unexpected outcome. Certain people have even gone so far as to say this is always the case (some guy named Isaac Newton).
One of the biggest contributors to hidden costs within contract manufacturing is the loss of control over your production processes. While this might be obvious or even desired, there may be some complications as a result of this new relationship that you hadn’t thought of previously.
Communication is always an important topic, but even more so when it comes to contract manufacturing. Not only may your production team physically reside on the other side of the globe, but things like language, culture, and time zone differences can make it difficult to keep good lines of communication open.
Quickly ramping up or ramping down production to meet changing demand can become a lot more challenging, too. This is partly due to the nature of the shared resources that you are buying access to when you team up with a CM.
A classic example of a culmination of these issues came from Cicso in the early 2000’s, back when out-sourcing was in its infancy. Cisco had been riding the surging wave of growth in the telecommunications industry which starting leading to supplier shortages. Shortly thereafter, the bottom fell out of telecom and Cisco forgot to turn off the contract manufacturing tap. Before long, Cisco’s raw-parts inventory rose by more than 300% from Q3 to Q4 2000, leading to a $2.2 billion write-off of inventory. Wall Street responded as you might expect, causing Cisco’s stock to fall by 50%.
The Human Cost
Perhaps the greatest hidden cost is one that may never make it to your company’s balance sheet: exploitation of workers in the developing countries where many contract manufacturers do business. It’s no secret that the biggest driver behind outsourcing is low labor costs. While it’s not always apples-to-apples to compare a production worker’s wage in China to one in the U.S., by any measurement the difference is more than a factor of 10 (although that number is dropping).
This dirty little secret of the consumer electronics industry came to light in 2012 when it was discovered that Foxconn, the largest electronics CM with over $100 billion in revenue and manufacturer of the Apple iPad, was mistreating some of their workers. Conditions grew so bad that in some cases workers decided to jump to their death rather than survive in that environment.
Bottom Line
Contract manufacturing might very well still be the right choice for you, just keep in mind that you may have more “unknown unknowns” than you had, well, known about. The more you can discuss with your CM candidate up front, the better your relationship will likely be. Also, some of these “gotcha’s” can be planned for in the agreement between you and your CM, so don’t skimp on the up-front work. And remember, there is no unicorn with rainbow laser beam eyes. That I know of.
by Fronetics | Jun 8, 2015 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
For many years robots seemed like the brainchild of science fiction writers and directors, meeting the needs of humans as we saw in the Jetsons, or challenging them as we saw in Battlestar Galatica. Occasionally we hear stories on the news of robots being built in basement labs at prestigious universities such as MIT or Stanford. Recently there was a report on NPR about how one of UCal Berkeley’s robots couldn’t easily figure out how to fold laundry, so, one could ask: what are we worried about? If robots can’t fold laundry in under ten minutes, could they take over manufacturing?
There has been a downward trend in manufacturing jobs since 1980 in the U.S. with similar spirals in Japan, Germany, and China. Is there a correlation between the decrease in manufacturing employment and the rise of the robot? According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2014 most industrial robots were operating in the same countries/regions: Japan (306,700 robots), North America (237,400), China (182,300), South Korea (175,600), and Germany (175,200).
In the same WSJ article, a new generation of robots is profiled. These robots are “smarter, more mobile, more collaborative, and more adaptable.” They are also less bulky and less dangerous for humans to work next to. One might say that the newest generation of robots is acquiring many of the positive qualities of human workers, and that that, combined with many skills humans don’t and can’t possess, makes them the ultimate worker. If robots supersede the work humans can physically do, in a faster, safer, more efficient way, then what will come of the human worker?
Many believe that robots will allow for manufacturers to return to the U.S. from their low-paying, cost-saving plants overseas. They also believe that robots won’t take away from jobs, but rather create them. According to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR), robots actually create millions of jobs. The IFR’s reports oppose the idea that manufacturing jobs are waning. In 2011 article Positive Impact of Industrial Robots on Employment, the author, Metra Martech, stated, “The German and Japanese (automotive) manufacturers who have invested heavily in automation and robots have maintained a lead in the quality market. Germany has increased the number of people employed in the automotive sector.”
The IFR also states that there are many other benefits to robots in manufacturing:
- robots carry out work in areas that would be unsafe for humans.
- robots carry out work that would not be economically viable in a high wage economy.
- robots carry out work that would be impossible for humans.
“The Second Economy”, one in which computers have business interactions only with other computers, is upon us. According the to economist, Brian Arthur, who coined the term, things might not look so bright for the future of the American worker. He states, “If the Second Economy does achieve that rate of growth, it will be replacing the work of approximately 100 million workers. To put that number in perspective, the current total employed civilian labor force today is 146 million. A sizeable fraction of those replaced jobs will be made up by new ones in the Second Economy. But not all of them. Left behind may be as many as 40 million citizens of no economic value in the U.S alone. The dislocations will be profound.”
Others, some who are at the forefront of technology, are also very concerned about the rise of robots. Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, is one of the worried. He was recently quoted saying, “Computers are going to take over from humans, no question… Like people including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have predicted, I agree that the future is scary and very bad for people. If we build these devices to take care of everything for us, eventually they’ll think faster than us and they’ll get rid of the slow humans to run companies more efficiently.T”
The stuff of sci-fi is becoming a reality. As we humans make the robots that will replace us, only time will tell if that will benefit our race or harm it.
