by Fronetics | Jul 22, 2014 | Blog, Supply Chain, Talent
Hiring the wrong person is a costly mistake not only financially, but also in terms of team morale and productivity. Making the right hire is crucial.
Research conducted by the PewResearch Internet Project found that in 2013 73 percent of online adults used a social networking site of some kind. The percentage is even higher for job seekers – 89 percent. Given the high prevalence of use, it is likely that your talent pool is on at least one social networking site. Hiring managers and HR professionals within the supply chain industry should use this reality to hire great supply chain talent.
Social media is increasingly being used by hiring managers and HR professionals in their hiring process. More than one third of employers use social media in their hiring practices, here’s why you should follow suit.
A study conducted by CareerBuilder.com found that 65 percent of employers who use social media to screen candidates do so to see how the candidate presents themselves professionally. Fifty-one percent of employers used social media to see if the candidate would be a good match for the company’s culture, and 45 percent reported that they used social media to further research the candidate’s qualifications.
Of those employers who use social media in their hiring process, 34 percent reported that they found content that resulted in them not hiring a candidate. Close to 50 percent of reported that they did not hire a candidate because of inappropriate material in their profile, and 45 reported they did not make the hire because of indications of drinking and/or drug abuse. Other negatives found by the employer were poor communication skills, criticizing former employers, and making prejudicial comments.
A candidate’s social media profile and use can also provide employers with information that can push a candidate to the top of the list. Approximately 29 percent of employers reported that they hired a candidate because their social media profile supported professional qualifications and/or contained a great reference about the candidate. Additionally, employers reported that they hired a candidate because their social media profile showed that the candidate was creative, well-rounded, or had great communication skills.
One thing to keep in mind – all information found online and via social media needs to be treated in the same manner as information found via traditional sources. All hiring practices must abide by state and federal laws relating to fair and equal hiring.
Social media is a great tool that can assist hiring managers and HR professionals hire great talent.
by Fronetics | Jul 17, 2014 | Blog, Leadership, Supply Chain, Talent
Because great talent doesn’t look like Waldo, here is how to spot great great supply chain talent.
Wouldn’t it be nice if great talent looked like Waldo?
If great talent looked like Waldo we could simply look at the pool of candidates and be able to identify them by their telltale red and white striped shirt.
Unfortunately, great talent doesn’t show itself like our friend Waldo. Given this, how can the supply chain industry spot great talent?
Smart companies realize that it is not the skills the candidate possesses today, but rather the candidate’s personality. This may seem counterintuitive, but consider this – skills can be taught, personality cannot.
Here are five traits that great employees share. When making your next hire look for candidates who possess these traits.
Smart – Smart doesn’t necessarily mean a high IQ. Rather it means having good judgment, being quick to comprehend, and having the faculty of reasoning and understanding.
Ambitious – Ambition drives innovation and productivity. An ambitious individual has high expectations for themselves and for their career. Their drive to succeed will positively impact your company.
Honest – Integrity is everything.
Gracious – A person who is able to admit failure, thank others, and able give credit where it is due will prove to be an indispensable member of your team.
Exceptional communication skills – Communication is the basis of success.
In addition to looking for these traits, also consider whether or not the individual is a good match with your company’s culture.
You can’t train personality
In the end, it is important to remember that you can train an individual to perform the tasks needed for the job, but you can’t change (or train) personality. Be flexible when it comes to specific job requirements, but be rigid when it comes to personality traits.
by Fronetics | Jul 15, 2014 | Blog, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy, Supply Chain, Talent
If the supply chain industry is going to attract new and qualified talent, it needs a face lift. The industry needs to be proactive. It needs to communicate what it is, what is currently happening within the industry, and what is in store for the future.
Who is responsible for making change possible? You.
Job seekers turn to the Internet for information. Job seekers not only use the internet to search for job openings, they also use the Internet to research industries, companies, and key players. The information job seekers gather by looking at websites, blog posts, articles, and social media shape their opinion and knowledge. According to the 2013 CareerBuilder Candidate Behavior Study 63 percent of job seekers turn to social media to learn about the employment brand of a company. Specifically, job seekers look to social media to learn about the culture of a company, to learn if the company is a thought leader, and to determine the authenticity of the employment brand.
Job seekers are likely seeing sensational headlines like this recent one from Forbes: Wanted: 1.4 million new supply chain workers by 2018. But what do they find when they move forward with their search for information on the supply chain industry and on your company?
The reality is that the supply chain industry has been slow to participate in social media and has been remiss when it comes to blogging. Even more basic, many companies within the supply chain industry do not recognize the value of their website and have created sites which provide little to no helpful information, are difficult to navigate, and are not up to date.
According to the CareerBuilder Study, 91 percent of candidates believe employment brand plays a role in their decision whether or not to apply.
If your company is going to attract great supply chain talent you need to step up to the plate. Make changes to your website, create and curate great content, and get active on social media.
Great talent is on the Internet. If you want to attract great talent you need to be there too.
by Jennifer Hart Yim | Jun 12, 2014 | Blog, Data/Analytics, 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.
Regularly tracking your relationship with your suppliers and their performance toward your expectations is critical to ensure the success of your business. One mechanism for tracking this is the supplier scorecard. A scorecard is in essence a report card for your supplier. Supplier scorecards when used effectively can help maintain a healthy supply chain and will benefit both parties. If not used effectively supplier scorecards can damage the supplier relationship and hurt both businesses.
Effective scorecards should use meaningful metrics. If it doesn’t align with business goals then it shouldn’t be measured. Easily measured variables of no importance will just cause clutter; they could also cause a supplier to focus their performance in areas that do not matter. If the metrics are not clearly defined and understood by the suppliers then it will be hard for them to adjust their performance in these areas. Another consideration is there may be things that are important to you which your suppliers have no way of measuring or attaining the performance you are asking for.
As with all business to business relationships communication is critical for maintaining and improving supplier performance. To ensure suppliers meet your needs you should communicate to them from the offset how their performance will be measured. You can even tie bonuses and penalties into their performance scores. You should be mindful that your relationship with your supplier should be collaborative; as you grow so should they. You should share the results of your scorecards with your suppliers on a regular basis and shouldn’t wait until a review to raise a concern. Another important aspect of communication is sharing your business objectives and performance data with your suppliers. This can help them to better shape their business to meet your needs as your business fluctuates.
It is important when evaluating suppliers to have a good process in place for tracking important metrics. When possible it is best to use accurate data that is understood by both you and your supplier. If you use fuzzy metrics which are subjective then improvements become difficult to measure and target. Also, tracking metrics throughout the scoring period will help to ensure the data is accurate and your scorecard reflects actual performance.
When dealing with different suppliers it is important to make sure the metrics you are evaluating are relevant to each supplier. As a result it is not recommended to use a one size fits all approach to supplier scorecards. Another thing to keep in mind is that you may be sourcing from the same supplier through multiple locations. It is important to track each of these on its own scorecard to help your supplier learn where they are doing things right and where they are falling short of your expectations.
Where I work we have several strategic supplier partnerships. The way we manage supplier relationships is through quarterly business reviews with each of our partners. In these meetings high level representation from both companies is present. We share with our partners our business results and forecasts in addition to any major company news. After sharing this information we review our scorecard process with the suppliers, show a score card comparison, take a detailed look at each rating, and then provide an overall summary.
Our scoring system looks at aspects of quality, delivery, cost, support, and inventory management. With respect to quality we look at hard numbers like failures out of the box and returns from our customers. We take into account both product quality and process quality. When it comes to delivery we measure on-time delivery, missed shipments, and lead times. Some of our customers have long term fixed cost agreements so this metric isn’t required, for others the cost fluctuates; we measure whether or not their costs are in line with our expectations. Support has several levels including technical support, order support, and special cases. Inventory management tracks how well they are able to maintain some inventory on hand for us.
Our scorecard metrics used to be scored on the basis of a five point scale from far below expectations to far above expectations. After running through several of these scorecards we determine that it was not likely to get exceeds expectations because the only time expectations could be exceeded is if our demand was well above our forecasts. Since this goal wasn’t something attainable by a supplier of their own action we adjusted our scorecard to have only three levels, from below expectations to meets expectations.
The scorecard comparison is unique to the supplier and it shows the ratings for each of the metrics for the current review period as well as four prior quarters. We display this in a color coded matrix so that it is easy to see where each metric is improving, staying the same, or regressing from period to period. For my employer these quarterly business reviews give us frequent touch points with our suppliers. This helps us to identify issues and areas for improvement to strengthen our supplier relationships and our business.
Throughout this article I have hit on several best practices with respect to supplier scorecards. I want to stress that this is just a tool. The fact that you have a scorecard system in place should not prevent you from acting immediately if issues present themselves. After all, this should be a collaborative exercise which will benefit both your company as well as your suppliers. In addition it is important to solicit internal feedback from interested parties. Supplier scorecards should be used to make decisions about whether or not to continue supplier relations or to pursue alternative suppliers.
Mike Cleary is a Software Quality Assurance Engineer at Empirix pursuing his Masters of Science in Management of Technology from the University of New Hampshire. He has over ten years of experience in testing IP and telephony solutions across a variety of platforms. In his current role he is responsible for not only ensuring Quality in the E-XMS solution but other administrative tasks such as lab configuration, VM server, and perforce administration.
by Jennifer Hart Yim | Jun 5, 2014 | 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.
By now we have all heard the story of GM’s faulty ignition switches that are being linked to thirteen deaths and thirty one front-end collisions. The ignition switches in car models: Chevy Cobalt; Chevy HHR; Pontiac G5; Pontiac Solstice; Saturn Ion; and Saturn Sky, lacked the torque specs required by GM engineers. Heavy key chains, bumpy roads, or an accidental knee hit were all reasons reported that could cause the ignition switch to rotate to the off or idle position. Once this happened, the driver would lose control and the air bags would fail to deploy if a front end collision occurred. A total of 2.6 million vehicles were recalled, of that 2.2 million were in the United States. For this type of recall, GM was not requiring vehicles to go back to the manufacturer or be disposed. Rather, a more robust key ignition was distributed to all authorized GM dealerships and customers were told to bring their cars to the local dealership and a new ignition switch would be put in for them.
Despite the massive recall and all the negative publicity that goes along with such an event, GM still posted positive numbers in their quarterly earnings. GM posted an operating income of $0.5 billion for 1Q14, which is included the $1.3 billion recall-related charge. Furthermore, GM controlled approximately 17% of the U.S. market share. After the ignition switch incidents started to gain traction, GM swore to reorganize their global engineering department, and they did. So, if GM’s sales profitability is surviving, their negative press contained, and their market share intact, what exactly went wrong?
Two-thirds of General Motors automotive costs in 2014 are from supplier sourced parts. However, this was not always the situation. Back in 1999, GM underwent an extensive effort to disassemble their vertical integration in hopes of reducing overall costs. At this time, Delphi Automotive was owned by GM, but separated during the same year. For decades, GM was Delphi’s only customer, and even when Delphi executives knew GM was going to make them a public company, they were only able to move 22% of their business to other customers. When GM officially made Delphi a public company, 82.3% of their shares went to GM shareholders. That means that only 17.7% of Delphi was sold to public investors. In order to survive as a company, Delphi had to start making cost reduction decisions. To do this, companies often lay off employees and make cheaper parts, Delphi was no different. Now during this same time period, GM executives were focused on focused on costs reductions and were driven by numbers, hence the selling off of Delphi. It should be noted that if a company sells off their single largest parts supplier, fully aware that the move may cause the supplier to go belly up, there will be some strained relationships. Delphi was now thrown into a position where they must compete with other parts suppliers for GM’s business. An important part of the deal GM made when selling off Delphi was to keep all current supplier contracts. In addition, GM gave Delphi the opportunity to match any competitor’s bid until 2002. The earliest model of a recalled GM car was 2003.
Strained supplier relationships are not ideal for business, but should not affect the quality of a product, such as an ignition switch. Let’s fast forward to 2008. Delphi had declared bankruptcy three years prior and GM was beginning to pull them out of their financial burden. A contract was found between GM and Delphi that was drafted in 2008. The document is a little difficult to follow, but there are a few interesting lines in Section 5.09 Product Liability Claims. It appears that, GM said they would share the blame with Delphi for any claims against them. However, GM would not be held responsible if one of Delphi’s parts, or a part made for Delphi by a third party, fails. The contract continues on to say that GM would pay any legal fees if a claim was made against Delphi, but Delphi must defend GM through a potential lawsuit. This contract was drafted and signed in 2008, during which Delphi was bankrupt, so it appears they had little negotiating power.
This raises concerns specifically about the ignition switch specs. It came out that GM officials knew the ignition switch they purchased from Delphi was not up to their standards. After some more research, an email transaction between Delphi officials in regards to the plunger, the vital part that holds the key slot in place with a spring, and the ignition switch. At the end of the document, the original engineer drawings are attached. From the technical drawings it can be seen that Delphi did in fact outsource the design specs, and possibly the manufacturing, for the plunger design. Another document, that was preceding the email transaction, appears to inform GM that the plunger part was changed and the responsibility of the supplier is “closed”. This could have been a legal move meant to save Delphi if any claims were made related to these parts.
After all of this evidence, where does the blame lie? It would appear that GM used their powers to force Delphi into a contract that held them responsible for any claims against their products. While Delphi did warn GM that the torque requirement for their ignition switch did not meet GM’s requirement, it is unclear whether or not a verbal warning will play into the legal battle. This case is currently ongoing, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Connor Harrison holds a B.S.M.E and MBA from the University of New Hampshire.
