Oct 19, 2009 | Management, OE, Operations, Sales
Talking to a client last week about his S&OP processes, (or lack of them despite the software) I realised that we were both using English, but were talking a different language. This is often a challenge in S&OP implementations, and even amongst those who have successfully implemented in different businesses, as a local jargon usually emerges to accommodate the vagaries particular to the organisation, product type, and culture.
Following is a simplified list I gave to him as a basis from which the conversations could be translated, in the common order of S&OP preparation.
- Demand planning. A compilation of data (past sales, orders received & delivered, orders received and undelivered) and qualitative data from the marketplace (competitive activity, accounts won & lost, distribution changes, seasonal influence, and so on). This is not a forecast of what will be sold, it is a quantification of the influences on demand. This data is assembled in a huge variety of ways, often collated by the “Master Scheduler”, but not ideally to avoid capacity bias emerging too early, and the sales/customer management function, and operations management.
- Forecasts. A suite of forecasts for product families rolled into a consensus outlook based on the output of the demand planning process. At this stage it is unconstrained by questions of capacity & input availability. This is usually a specific role held by an individual, often titled “Master Scheduler” and is an ongoing responsibility, but signed off weekly for submission to the Capacity & planning meeting.
- Capacity & supply planning meeting, normally weekly. Puts the acid test of reality on the sales forecasts by adding the capacity and input availability constraints. The output is the daily/weekly production schedule to be executed based on the requirements and trade-offs/compromises that emerge from the more senior SOP processes.
- Pre-SOP. A meeting (normally bi-weekly) of the implementation level of management that makes the trade-offs and decisions that emerge from the Pre-SOP, ready for implementation, and identifies strategic resource allocation issues for resolution. This is the key meeting, and provides input to the senior S&OP meetings, and the capacity & supply planning meetings
- S&OP sign-off by senior management, normally monthly. Over time in successful implementations this becomes a rubber stamp on most occasions, but it retains the control of major decisions that need to be made that have more of a long term and capital utilisation impact than is available to the Pre-SOP management level. Things like new equipment, outsourcing, choices between major customers, contractual compliance, shift additions, and so on are usually signed off at this level.
Oct 18, 2009 | Demand chains, Management, OE
We can learn a lot about supply chain management from successful retailers.
To be successful, generally they have identified their logistics chains as a key source of competitive advantage and they work on it.
Their business model depends on having the stock on shelf when a consumer wants it, but with a minimum in reserve stock, and none “left over” that requires discounting or dumping to clear.
Li & Fung, the extraordinary Chinese supply chain manager who have had a key role in the boom in Asian sources fashion wear, Woolworths, the dominant Australian supermarket chain, and Spanish retailer Zara have all based their success on supply chain innovation supporting their service offer to customers.
A usual metaphor when explaining the Japanese Kanban system of managing “flow” through a process is of a supermarket shelf, a consumer takes one off, a replacement is delivered to the hole from a JIT flow from the supply chain. The appearance of a hole on a supermarket shelf is a physical representation of “pull” or demand, the basic building block of a chain that maximises demand chain efficiency, and builds a competitive advantage
Oct 7, 2009 | Leadership, Management, OE
Organisation charts almost always depict organisations as an equalateral triangle. It is a simple change in perspective, to see it with a third dimension, like the Egyptian pyramid. Suddenly, it is clear that the guts of the organization are largely hidden from view.
It also becomes clear that enterprises can really only work when there is engagement across the third dimension, with all the complication that engagement implies.
This simple act, of thinking about the organisation and how it works including the third dimension is an easy way to recognise the complications inherent in the management processes and decision-making necessary to make the thing effective. Cross functional co-operation then becomes an obvious necessity, not something mandated by someone with a good idea.
Sep 29, 2009 | Management, OE
One of my clients is currently undergoing a risk management exercise, pretty ordinary, albeit important stuff. List all the conceivable risks, rate their probability of occurrence, consider the impact if they occurred, and the consider the costs of mitigation. From that matrix, some sort of priority list for investment can be developed and implemented.
However, when we started considering the IT risk, we found ourselves confronted by an expanding list of considerations that seemed to grow the more we considered it. The pervasive nature of IT as it has evolved over the last 10 years has changed its risk profile in a profound way.
The boundaries between management functions have been blurred, as have the processes that drive manufacturing, procurement, customer management, and everything else where we routinely now use IT.
Even a simple IT failure is no longer isolated to the immediate functional area impacted by the loss of data, it impacts through the supply chain, and across functional areas in ways we had great difficulty predicting.
The message is simply that IT is sometimes easy to ignore, to treat as an expense, because it us so much part of the environment, but ignoring it is the worst possible outcome, instead, it should be at the front of discussions about investment (financial & human) productivity, process improvement, risk management and competitive advantage.
Aug 17, 2009 | Governance, Management, OE, Strategy
Return on Asset calculations as a realistic basis of performance measurement for many firms is rapidly going out the window.
On one hand we do the financial calculations, based on the accounting notion of tangible assets in the business, whilst on the other, saying that the primary assets of the business walk out the gate every night and go home.
This paradox should radically change the ways we measure the return on assets, it creates the need to find ways to consistently measure Intellectual Capital, not an easy challenge, but one that Directors and management need to start grappling with.
Consider, physical assets depreciate with use, but intellectual assets appreciate with use, so perhaps there is a measurement matrix in there somewhere, but probably fashioned by psychologists and anthropologists, rather than accountants.
Aug 2, 2009 | Demand chains, Innovation, OE, Operations
Standard project management tools are designed to manage a sequential series of activities typified by a building project. They do this very well, as the work flows are dependent on the completion of previous work that is done to well understood, almost generic specifications.
They are far less useful when they are set up to manage processes that rely on the production of information for their success, where iteration between different activities are required, such as those in a product development project or a value chain development and improvement process.
This leads to the conclusion that when developing such a project that requires the production of information to be successful, spend a bit more time in the planning stage to map the flows of information, particularly where there are known dependencies, as well as the work flows. This added investment of time in the planning stages typically yields huge returns during the implementation.
A simple question, asked over and over, can help:
“What do I need to know from other tasks before I can complete this one?”
