-> The Service Side of Supply Chain Management

Has the direction of Linkedin changed from a business-related social networking site to a marketing platform?

Of 20 “Discussions” within one “Sydney professional” group there where four posts that could only be considered Spam, eight were sales promos, one re-directed to a blog and the remainder were re-directs to ‘free’ information on a commercial site. There were in fact zero discussions.

On checking each of the Authors, it was found that the Spammers listed one or no jobs and every discussion promoted the same re-directed link (these were usually about jobs/careers).  One of the reasons I had labelled these as Spam was due to the number of supposedly different authors that used the same link and at regular intervals – usually one per day, per group.

The sales promos were either: group members pushing their own product or that of their employer (they usually had “Marketing” in their title.

The remainder of the posts did contain some interesting information but this was very limited. 

That said, I am a member of a number of other groups that have not been hijacked to the same extent, in fact one is very much a question and answer group (for MS-Excel) and rarely has promotions on their ‘discussions’ tab rather, promotions are posted on their promotions tab.

But over all, there are a  huge amount of sales pitches being conducted via LinkedIn discussions which generates hundreds of unwanted emails being pushed onto the group members.

This is obviously not the fault of LinkedIn itself, instead it is the Group Owner and Group Managers that are allowing this to happen.  Your best option once you have joined the group is to send a notice to the Group Managers (Often Managers will not have seen the post), they can then advise the offenders and/or take appropriate action.

Other Groups might as well have been set up as platforms for the Marketeers due the the type and regulatirity of the posts.  There is, thankfully one way of remaining in the group and not being bombarded with sales pitches:  go into your settings and change the frequency of the digests and emails for each Group to weekly, daily or none. 

But if you do find a good Group, make sure you participate in the discussions, or it will degenerate and eventually value adding activity will stop.

I

Many times the message will be heard that customers want a faster more reliable delivery service. So the Distribution Manager will call for a meeting with the Carrier asking they address the problem – now. But by drilling down it is found customers are receiving their orders anywhere between 4-25 days with a gazetted delivery of 6 days.

In fact after talking to the customers, all they really want (as an example) is to get a guarantee that their orders will arrive on day 6, every time and this actually happens.

To achieve this will not entail just talking to the carrier and setting KPIs and exception reports etc, there will need to be a proper Root Cause Analysis carried out.  You may find that aside from the Carriers own issues there are delays throughout the process, for example the time it takes to receive and enter an order, the picking schedules in the warehouse, the collection schedules, the availability of stock etc.

There are many ways a company can improve their own Supply Chain without the need to rush out and purchase new systems or equipment. Often it is seeing the big picture, then following some basic steps:

1-       Map the Supply Chain

2-       Identify the bottle necks

3-       Identify a few, appropriate KPIs

4-       Put into place an Exception Reporting process (to trigger Root Cause Analysis & Corrective Actions)

5-       Use your ‘CAR’ system to record and monitor issues, both operational and systemic.

6-       Communicate with all stake-holders: suppliers-staff-customers

Like the Mousetrap, investing in bigger, faster processes and products may not be what is required, it might just be to stabilise what you have and set appropriate customer expectations.  A targeted approach such as this will cost less, retain customers and will probably reduce ongoing costs.

Whatever the cause or source for the focus on climate change, it has meant that all governments – local, state, national and international – are putting regulations and monitory in place.  One immediate benefit from this is that records are now being kept and as any Six Sigma proponent will tell you, it is only then that you can make informed decisions – either way. Without this information it is all emotion and hearsay.

BUT this will not absolve businesses from being aware of perception; a declining public perception will kill profits and eventually the business. I am not promoting or knocking Eviance, (a company that provides Environmental Enterprise Resource Planning software) but they have put out a white paper on this subject  “The Value of Public Perception: Transforming Environmental Efforts From Compliance-Driven to Risk Management”.

I like this paper as they are suggesting that following the regulations and making business calculations based on whether to comply or not, is like playing the game from the sidelines.  Customers, investors and competitors are now very savvy and review a companies environmental performance – and environmental plans – which means if you are perceived in the wrong light regards your environmental scorecard, you lose.

It is the pro-active steps that are taken regards the environment (not just climate change) that can push a company to the front of the pack. This is a common marketing theme – listen to your customer.  Even raising the awareness of customers, investors and competitors that your company is against particular regulations or perceived climate friendly initiatives will damage your reputation.

In summary, any SWOT analysis would indicate that it is in the company’s best interest – including long term financially – to go environmentally friendly, be ahead of the regulations, be perceived as being on the same side as other stake-holders. Yep, the tide is rising and as with the Danish King Canute, no commands or pleading will stop it.

I think both have a place in the argument about creativity.  A good leader will use vertical as well as lateral thinking in proposing solutions to problems (the true artisan), the problem as I see it, most who consider themselves as leaders are in fact managers who (using the analogy in the initial response) are managing by numbers. Yes there is a belief they use ingenuity and imagination to paint the sky light blue when the number says dark blue. But hey, that’s not being creative.

Conversely, rules, regulations and customer’s requirements are not barriers to creativity, if we stay with the analogy of the painter – Cubism has a style (rules) but within cubism there are different problems and solutions. More so if we take different art forms such as sculpture. So the same for business, there are different scopes for problems and solutions, depending on the business and a multitude of other factors.

So, just solving problems is not being creative, but creativity can be used to solve problems. And it is a rare Leader (business or otherwise) that has the self awareness and confidence to allow those in their team to be truly creative and not just filling in the spaces (problems) as expected.

Another very good article on Innovation is from Stanford Graduate School of Business on why failure is considered a good thing:  Why Failure Drives Innovation.

My personal observations are that people of Mind set-1 (see Why Failure Drives Innovation)  rely on systems and procedures to improve what they have in an attempt to continue the success they once had.  Yes the tools such as 5S and six sigma and TQM and Lean and …..etc,   all add value to the process of improving quality and  reducing costs.

But it is the innovators, those that Baba Shiv calls Mind set-2, who are the ones that bring real success.   Improving what you have to the N^th degree is all fine and good and does save plenty of pennies. But this is neither sustainable nor effective in the long run – refer to Richard Foster’s  S-Curve pertaining to Performance vs Effort (funds).

Take land transport:  although humans have used the horse and donkey for a long time it was not until the invention of the wheel around 4,000-3,500 years ago when things really got moving, especially with the advent of the cart and chariot around 3,500 years ago.  But things remained slow for a couple of millennium, yes they improved the carts and wagons but they were still limited by the technology of the time. Then came steam during the 18th century and mass transportation began, people and goods being moved all over the country – but restricted to the rail corridor.  The next leap forward was the invention of the internal combustion engine by an innovator called Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir – although the automobile was not patented until 1890′s.  And now, we have car  companies improving the effectiveness, efficiency and aesthetics of the automobile but they are still pretty much the same.  The next leap forward is the introduction of the electric car and levitating train.

As you can see, the periods between innovation are getting shorter. But innovation is at all levels, in all industries and in all countries, it is the Innovators who are making the jump, building the bridges to the future, the rest follow, some with eagerness while some dragged and screaming and the rest blindly.

Me, well I can’t wait for the strap-on, Personal Anti-gravity Commuter vehicle. Now that’s a back-pac!

It should state whether the contract will be awarded to single or multiple Tenderers and if joint (consortium) tenders are acceptable. It should also outline the tender process and the manner in which the contract will be awarded.

It should explain how much input to the day to day operations each stakeholder will have eg: co-development of standards.

This is also where other considerations (such as preferred standards) are listed.  For example, the company may want to raise its Environmental and Social Responsibility profile so would prefer to work with Tenderers that have ISO 26000 and/or ISO 14001.

Goods – What the goods are, weight and dimensions of the average carton; smallest carton and largest carton, seasonal ordering patterns, type of product eg: flammable, perishable.

Delivery – What the average consignment consists of by volume and weight eg: average number of cartons, weight and volume. I also include where-ever possible the annual throughput ie total number of consignments with total weight and volume. It is also good to advise them of any special handing requirements.

With the above information, the Tenderers can quickly ascertain how they will approach the project. As with most agreements of this type, the bigger the pie the more they can discount, but this is just an indicator, they will still need to put costs against a desensitized sample report of consignments (this will come later in the program).

Having information summarized at this point will prompt them to quickly review specific parts of the document or ask you targeted questions, while still early into the project. Remember: if one Tenderer has requested further information or clarification, you should provide the results to all Tenderers; this will ensure the playing field is kept level and there is no risk of accusations of preferential treatment.

Next post will be – “Objectives”

Cheers Mark

Some points normally covered under Background include:

1.    Company – the size of the company, the products/services it provides and how it provides these products services to the market and possibly who its customers are.  It may also be relevant to include whether the company operates from multiple sites.  Think of this as a “marketing spiel”.

2.    Department – which department, Branch, division,  the winning Tenderer will be working with.

3.    Explain what product/service will be required from the Tenderer at a high level – more detail will be given further into the document.

4.    Describe how this process fits in with the overall goal of the company/Department, this can also be considered as the reason the RFP has been drafted.  This will give the Tenderer a reason why THEY are important to the process.

5.    Access to public information also allows the Tenderer to source further information that may help with their proposal.  Providing the company’s URL or others pertaining to your particular industry is an obvious option and gives them an opportunity to provide further information/services that were not requested but just might add value to the arrangement.

6.    Provide information on other aspects you consider important but not critical, for example: by stating that you are an environmentally and humanitarian conscious company may solicit comparative information from the Tenderers.

7.    Other items as you deem appropriate.