CSCO Report 2011

8/4/2019 CSCO Report 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/csco-report-2011 1/47

The Chief

Supply Chain Ofcer

Report 2011A research study by:

Dr. Hau Lee, Chirmn, SCM World

Kevin O’Marah, Fculty Memer, SCM World

Executive Summary by:

Pier Luigi Sigismondi,Chief Supply Chain Ofcer, Unilever

www.scmworld.com | SCM World, RptureWorld Compny



T h e

C h i e f S u p p l y

C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

2© SCM World 2011

INTRODUCTION

SCM World, the global institute for supply chain learning, trainingand development, brings you the results of its 2011 Chief SupplyChain Ofcer (CSCO) study.

This yer’s CSCO Report is collortion etween Dr. Hu Lee, Chirmn,SCM World nd Kevin O’Mrh, Fculty Memer, SCM World nd includesan executive summary by Pier Luigi Sigismondi, Chief Supply Chain Ofcert Unilever.

Developed to scertin the priorities nd strtegies senior-level supplychin professionls re undertking in 2011 nd eyond, this report looks tounderstnd how compnies re positioning their supply chin orgnistionsto deliver growth.

Over 750 glol eecutives completed the survey, including SCM Worldmemers nd non-memers, with over 50% of respondents t VP-levelnd ove within their orgnistions.

This yer’s report is sponsored y E2open, leding provider of cloud-sed supply chin mngement solutions. The report sponsor hs no

inuence over the survey design or results.

We are sure you will nd this highly informative reading. Please do nothesitate to contact SCM World to discuss any of the ndings in greaterdetil.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Hau LeeChirmn

SCM World

Kevin O’MarahFculty Memer

SCM World



© SCM World 2011

T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

TabLE OF CONTENTS

Eecutive Summryby Pier Luigi Sigismondi, Chief Supply Chain Ofcer, Unilever

Supply Chin Mngement nd Vlue Cretion

Glolistion nd Emerging Economies

Sustinility

Tlent Mngement nd Skills Development

Conclusion nd Recommendtions

aout SCM World

4

5

12

23

32

45

47



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

4© SCM World 2011

In the weeks following the Jpnese erthquke nd tsunmi in Mrch, theeyes of the business world were rmly focused on the global supply chain.In the ftermth of those trgic events, mny usinesses hve sufferedshortges in supply nd production incpcity, s well s lck of inventorynd inevitle closures cross distriution networks.

all this hs served to position the supply chin even higher s keyusiness sset. Tht is, s strtegic driver of vlue for the usiness thtdelivers tngile competitive dvntge. We s supply chin leders re nolonger eclusively technicl, opertionl people with sole focus on drivingcost reduction. In tody’s climte, we ply fundmentl role in enlingthe compny growth gend through cross-functionl enggement ndeternl prtnership with our suppliers nd customers. and nowhere is thismore evident than in times of crisis where resilience, exibility, speed andresponsiveness cross the end-to-end vlue chin mke ll the difference.

So ginst this ckdrop, it is my plesure to write the introduction for theChief Supply Chain Ofcer Report 2011. This year’s report has been co-uthored y Dr. Hu Lee, Chirmn of SCM World nd Thom Professor of Opertions, Informtion nd Technology t the Stnford Grdute School of business, longside Kevin O’Mrh, Fculty Memer t SCM World.

both Hu nd Kevin hve designed this report to drw out the criticl insightstht eecutive supply chin professionls re prioritising cross four key res:vlue-driving supply chin mngement, glolistion, sustinility ndtalent management. As you will discover, the ndings identify a series of keydevelopments which suggest chnge in supply chin strtegy from three orfour yers go.

Highlights of this study include:► Emerging markets are now fully-edged growth markets with an

overwhelming 80% of respondents selling nd delivering to emergingeconomies

► Sustinility incresingly forms prt of the DNa for high performingsupply chins, with 65% of respondents chrcterising pressure fromsenior mngement nd the ord s the source of sustinility efforts

► Tlent cquisition nd ledership development represent key chllengescross supply chin mngement, with 90% off respondents greeingtht it is t lest “n importnt issue”

In sum, this year’s research ndings serve to underline supply chain’s growingrole s driver for vlue cretion nd source of competitive dvntge inthe glol contet nd, in turn, the chnging requirements for supply chinleders to deliver ecellence. Consequently, there is no dout tht tlentmngement will ecome n incresing priority s industry looks to developfuture leders tht cn drive overll usiness performnce.

I feel very energised by these new perspectives and hope you will ndthem eqully inspiring in continuing your own journey towrd supply chinecellence.

Yours sincerely,

Pier Luigi SigismondiChief Supply Chain Ofcer

ExECUTIVE SUMMaRY by Pier Luigi Sigismondi, Chief Supply Chain Ofcer, Unilever



© SCM World 2011

T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

SUPPLY CHaINMaNaGEMENT aNDVaLUE CREaTION



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

6© SCM World 2011

SUPPLY CHaIN MaNaGEMENT aND VaLUE CREaTION

Supply chin mngement is viewed s key driver to enhnce thecompetitiveness of compnies. Trditionlly, supply chin ecellence hs enledcompanies to operate lean and efciently, thereby reducing waste and resourcesused. Operting cost reduction in the form of lower processing cost, higher sset

utilistion nd reduced inventory cn result in higher mrgins for compnies.but ltely, innovtive compnies hve used supply chin ecellence s mensto support new usiness development, resulting in compnies gining moremarket share and revenues; increased protability; improved customer servicend loylty; nd enhnced shreholder vlue. Such vlue cretion spects of supply chin hve ecome new competitive ground for most compnies toaspire to. Indeed, the super-agile and efcient supply chains of companies likeSeven-Eleven Jpn, amzon.com, Dell, Zr nd Li & Fung re viewed s thedriving force for the usiness’ success.

Is it true tht more supply chin eecutives re using supply chin ecellence s mens to crete vlue, or is this limited to the innovtors? Does supply chin

ecellence relly enle vlue cretion? In wht wys do compnies cretevlue using supply chin mngement nd wht fctors drive the success of the different wys for vlue cretion? This report ddresses these mtters inorder to id compnies, on n opertionl level, to steer their supply chins forusiness vlue cretion.

as shown in Figure 1, overll usiness vlue nd compny equity cn e cretedthrough incresing revenues, vlue-dded services nd operting cost reduction.Such vlue cretion nd cost reduction cn e supported y the use of supplychin levers s performnce drivers for the usiness, wherey vlue cn ecreted nd key usiness drivers met through supply chin ecellence. as such,understnding wht the usiness’ drivers re nd their reltionship therein with

supply chin levers ecomes criticl in helping compnies design the journey torelise success.

Around this specic focus area, the Chief Supply Chain Ofcer 2011 surveyposed the following questions:

1 How importnt do supply chin eecutives view supply chin improvementss key for vlue cretion versus operting cost reduction?

2 How importnt re supply chin levers in supporting vlue cretion?

3 Wht re the wys in which vlue cn e creted through supply chin

ecellence?

4 For each way of creating value, what drivers play signicant roles for itssuccess?



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

7© SCM World 2011

3.1%

1.3%

0.7%

.1%

.1%

2.3%

27.9%

1.%

9.0%

3.7%

0.1%

3.9%

2.2%

0.1%

51.1%

0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%0.0%50.0%0.0%

4a6uecrea8onthrough6ongtermequity

improvement(suchasenhancingbrand

equity)

4a6uecrea8onthroughincreasing

revenue

Gpera8ngcostreduc8on

5

3

2

1

Figure 1: How important is it for you as a CSCO to focus onsupply chain improvementsfor the following? (1=not important, 5=extremely important)


Importance of Supply Chain Improvements

Rther epectedly, supply chin eecutives view supply chin improvementss criticl for operting cost reduction, with Figure 1 illustrting tht 88% of

respondents view supply chin improvements s importnt or veryimportnt for ensuring operting cost reduction. However, wht is

perhps surprising is tht 80% of respondents lso rnk supply chinimprovements s n importnt or very importnt mens for vluecretion through incresing revenue, while 61% correspondingly viewsuch improvements s very importnt for vlue cretion through longterm equity improvements (such s enhnced customer service ndloylty). Such results provide strong signl tht viewing supply chinimprovement s foundtion for vlue cretion is no longer limitedto the more progressive nd innovtive supply chin compnies ndtht there is now widespred view (nd we epect correspondingction) mongst supply chin eecutives to ‘go fter’ vlue cretion.Ultimtely, in tody’s usiness environment orgnistions whosesupply chain efforts are only conned to operating cost reduction are

likely to e left ehind the competition.

Importance of Supply Chain Levers and Value Creation

The literture is rich with the mny est prctices nd levers through whichcompnies gin control of their supply chins, while pst surveys hve focusedon identifying wht these levers re. Of interest in this report is the importnceof these supply chain levers in supporting value creation. The rst observation isthat almost all the levers stipulated have been identied as signicant. In otherwords, supply chin eecutives hve een using multiple levers to help supportvlue cretion.

These levers include:

“ Ultimtely, intody’s usiness

environment

orgnistions whose

supply chin efforts

are only conned

to operting cost

reduction re likely

to e left ehind the

competition ”

► Led time reduction

► Led time reliility

improvement

► Informtion visiility

► Supplier collortion

► Inventory turn increse

► Timely, ccurte ndcomprehensive performncemngement

► Demnd mngement (likeforecsting nd demnd shpingthrough promotions)

► Capacity exibility



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

8© SCM World 2011


Figure 2 below shows that all the levers proposed in the survey were identieds etremely importnt y more thn 25% of respondents; while 66-78% of respondents rnked ech lever s importnt or very importnt. These leverswere also identied as important drivers for operating cost reduction and a

signicant driver of value creation.

Two levers, however, stood out from the rest. Seventy nine per cent of respondentsidentied information visibility and lead time reliability improvements as eitherimportnt or very importnt. Informtion visiility is mens for compnies tocoordinate their supply chain operations to increase efciency, reduce wastend improve response time reliility. Hence, information visibility becomesthe foundation for all other levers. but it is impertive to note tht led timereliility improvements require other ttriutes too, such s hving the rightdistriution nd logistics prtners; hving the right level of sfety cpcity orinventory; nd hving relile mnufcturing processes.

5.5%

3.9%

1.3%

2.0%

1.1%

1.3%

1.1%

2.0%

0.7%

1.4%

0.9%

20.3%

21.1%

5.6%

5.4%

3.1%

6.%

5.9%

7.7%

1.9%

3.4%

3.%

41.3%

3.5%

24.6%

26.4%

19.5%

20.1%

20.1%

20.3%

16.2%

1.2%

14.%

25.2%

2.2%

44.0%

40.0%

4.6%

42.7%

42.4%

3.%

42.0%

36.3%

39.%

7.6%

.3%

24.6%

26.2%

27.7%

29.1%

30.6%

31.2%

39.2%

40.7%

40.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

ostponement

artnershipincen8veali#nment

Capacityflexibility

Inventoryturnincrease

Timely,accurateandcomprehensive

performancemeasurement

Pead8mereduc8on

Quppliercollabora8on

CustomerCollabora8on

Informa8onvisibility

Remandmana#ementBforecas8n#,

demandshapin#throu#hpromo8onetcF

Improvin#lead8mereliability

5

4

3

2

1

Figure 2: How important areeach of the following leversto supporting value creationthrough supply chain impro-vement? (1=not important,5=extremely important)



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

9© SCM World 2011

14.6%

2.7%

2.5%

1.0%

3.0%

2.5%

1.1%

25.3%

10.9%

9.0%

5.4%

.9%

6.0%

3.0%

33.0%

29.7%

25.%

24.1%

20.0%

21.%

12.5%

20.0%

39.1%

39.6%

44.0%

40.0%

37.2%

33.3%

7.2%

17.6%

23.0%

25.6%

2.0%

32.5%

50.1%

0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%

Peverageopportuni8escreatedfrom

externaldisturbanceordisasters

(suchasearthquakes,majorsupply

chaindisrup8ons,Ureetc

remiumpricing

Expandedofferingsofvalue-added

services

Qtrongersupplierrela8onships

Expansiontonewmarketsegments

withinexis8nggeographiesornew

geographies

Zewproductintroduc8on

Customerserviceleadingtocustomer

loyalty

5

4

3

2

1


Ways to Create Value through High-Performing Supply Chains

High performing supply chins cn enle compnies to crete vlue in multiplewys:

as Figure 3 revels, the overwhelming mjority of the supply chin eecutives

surveyed felt tht supply chin ecellence helps to uild vlue through customerservice nd, in turn, customer loylty. There is link etween this oservtionnd the importnce of supply chin levers s discussed previously. Viewed ysupply chin eecutives longside led time reliility improvements s one of the two most importnt levers to support vlue cretion, informtion visiilitytkes two directions; gining visiility from supply chin prtners nd providingvisiility to supply chin prtners. Given tht the ltter of these directions ndled time reliility re oth customer service oriented, it is rther unsurprisingthat enhanced customer service is identied by supply chain executives as themost importnt wy in which vlue is creted. Strong customer loylty is theridge through which customers repet usiness or epnd their reltionshipto cover other products or services, nd is lso the wy in which customers

offer priority tretment. Indeed, 83% ssign high or very high vlue to supplychin ecellence creting vlue through customer service (leding to enhncedcustomer loylty).

► New product introduction

► Premium pricing

► Epnded offerings of vlue-dded services

► Customer service leding tocustomer loylty

► Epnsion to new mrket segmentswithin eisting geogrphies orepnsion to new geogrphiclmrkets

► Leverging opportunities cretedfrom eternl disturnce ordissters (such s erthqukes,major supply disruptions, re, etc.)

► Stronger supplier reltionships

Figure 3: At your company,what is your assessment of the value created by havinga high performance supply chain (1=no value, 5=very high value)



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

10© SCM World 2011


Respondents lso suggest other wys in which vlue cretion cn occur throughsupply chin ecellence. The most frequent such response, which pplies to

some industries more thn others, is the retiler reltionship. Indeed,strengthening the retiler reltionship, eing le to serve retilers

etter nd collorting with retilers re ll proven wys to improvesles.

The second most frequent response ws new product introduction,with 70% of respondents stting tht supply chin ecellence is of highor very high vlue in this regrd. Indeed, supply chin ecellence cnhelp speed up new product introduction or increse the proility of successful new product introduction. Finlly, new mrket epnsionis lso regrded s high vlue result of supply chin ecellence,smoothening the penetration of new markets through efcient andrelile deliveries nd, in turn, llowing the effective customistion of products tilored to new mrket needs. Indeed, 68% of respondents

rnked new mrket epnsion s high or very high vlue result of running high-performnce supply chin.

Important Factors for Ways to Create Value through

Supply Chain Excellence

The underlying fctors tht contriute to the success of the forementionedres of vlue cretion will e emined herein. Figure 4 revels the key fctorsrespondents felt importnt nd relevnt in driving corresponding mens of vluecretion.

as indicted erlier, uilding customer loylty through customer service is the

most highly rted mens for vlue cretion through supply chin ecellence.Success comes from the ility to convert customer loylty to revenue ginsnd is dependent upon whether the customer views service s criterionfor mking sourcing decisions nd/or positive customer service eperienceleding to repet purchses. When ll such fctors eist, strong vlue cretionis potentil outcome.

Figure 4: Which of the following are relevant factors that link supply chain excellence and successful new product introduction (1=no value, 5=very high value)

“ Strong customerloylty is the ridge

through which

customers repet

usiness or epnd

their reltionship to

cover

other products or

services ”

4.4%

1.9%

4.%

3.4%

1.9%

2.1%

9.0%

6.5%

9.2%

6.6%

4.6%

3.7%

22.1%

26.3%

21.2%

19.%

17.9%

16.3%

43.7%

39.7%

39.2%

40.0%

43.7%

39.0%

20.9%

25.6%

25.7%

30.2%

31.%

3.%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Fastresponsetoengineeringchanges

Avoidcostover-runs

Hroductdevelopmentcycle8me

reduc8on

Abilitytomanageproduct

transi8onsBthesimultaneous

phasingoutofeKis8ngproductand

Abilitytorampupfast

On-scheduleproductintroduc8on

5

4

3

2

1



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

11© SCM World 2011


In the cse of new product introduction, speed nd reliility re still whtmatter, where speed refers to efcient product introduction and capacity ramp upwhen a product takes off. Of interest is that respondents also identied producttrnsition mngement (the simultneous mngement of the rmping down

of current products nd the rmping up of new products) s highly importnt.

With regrd to new geogrphicl mrket epnsion, the ility to customiseproducts for local needs or regulatory requirements and efcient distribution of the products to the customers re oth viewed s highly relevnt. Since mnyof the new geogrphicl mrkets re in emerging economies, where customertstes nd requirements re potentil drivers, nd logistics nd distriutioninfrstructure lesser developed, it is no surprise tht supply chin eecutivesview eing le to customise products for locl needs nd susequently distriutethem efciently as important drivers of success. It should be noted that somerespondents made specic reference to the importance of designing the rightservice to go with the product in new mrkets.

Chapter Summary and Key Takeaways

► Supply chin eecutives view supply chin improvement s crucil foroperting cost reduction, with 51% rnking such improvements setremely importnt nd further 37% selecting importnt

► Informtion visiility nd led time reliility improvements re thetwo levers which senior-level supply chin professionls most ssocite

with helping deliver vlue, with 79% rnking these two fctors s tlest importnt

► Eighty three per cent of respondents strongly elieve tht supplychin ecellence cretes vlue through customer service (leding tocustomer loylty), rnking such lever s t lest importnt

► New Product Introduction rnked highly mongst respondents s mens of driving vlue through high-performing supply chin, with70% selecting rting of importnt or ove



© SCM World 2011

T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

GLObaLISaTIONaND EMERGINGECONOMIES



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

13© SCM World 2011

GLObaLISaTION aND EMERGING ECONOMIES

Globalisation – Managing the Big Picture

For mny yers the notion of “supply chinglolistion” ws synonymous with “lowcost country sourcing”, especilly whereemerging economies were concerned. Newdt shows tht this old imge is no longerccurte, with n overwhelming mjorityof supply chin professionls pprochingglolistion tody s two wy street;oth sourcing from nd selling to. Figure 5illustrtes tht over 80% of the 750 supplychin eecutives surveyed report selling

nd shipping to emerging mrkets, with lrge portion (38% of the totlsmple) sying tht their supply chin strtegies for emerging mrkets wereprimrily oriented to selling nd delivering in these mrkets. In contrst, only18% descried their strtegies for emerging mrkets s primrily orientedto sourcing from such loctions.

This dt point sys lot out how the glol supply chin hs evolved inrecent yers oth in terms of the mturtion of these emerging economiesnd in terms of the sophistiction nd strtegic impct of the supply chindiscipline. In the rst instance, we were interested to learn not only howmuch ctivity ws eing mnged glolly cross the vlue chin, utwhether the trend ws incresing or decresing. For sourcing, mnufcturingor ssemly ctivities, gret mny compnies re hevily dependent onnon-home country work. Figures 6 nd 7 illustrte tht round qurter

of ll compnies sy they source nd mnufcture rod for etween 75-100% of their totl volumes, while minority (17% nd 30% respectively)do less thn 10% of such work in non-home country loctions. Furthermore,the portion of respondents who see these volumes incresing is drmticllyhigher – ve to one and eight to one respectively. It is clear that globalsourcing nd mnufcturing oth remin nd, more importntly, re stillgrowing fst.

“ ... over 80% report selling nd shipping to

emerging mrkets, with lrge portion sying

tht their supply chin strtegies for emerging

mrkets were primrily oriented to selling nd

delivering in these mrkets ”

Figure 5: Your supply chain strategy for emerging markets is

1.4%

37.6%

44.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Orientedprimarilyaroundsourcing

fromemergingmarkets

Orientedprimarilyaroundselling

deliveringtoemergingmarkets

Aboutequallysourcingfromand

sellingtoemergingmarkets



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

14© SCM World 2011

50.5%

18.0%

12.1%

10.9%

8.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Below10%

10%-50%

25%-50%

50%-75%

75%-100%


Other vlue chin ctivity, however, is less likely to e done outside of thehome country, in prticulr design work. Over 50% of respondents sttetht less thn 10% of design work is eing done rod (Figure 8) nd,lthough 30% re incresing this shre yer-on-yer, ig mjority (63%)pln no chnge t ll.

Despite much tlk of the rmies of engineers grduting ech yer fromChinese nd Indin universities, most compnies round the world would stillrther keep their cretive duties close to hedqurters. a similr oservtionrelates to the exercise of direct managerial control. Despite large ows of ctivity in sourcing nd mnufcturing rod, the overwhelming mjorityof compnies hve only minor portions of either direct report stff or ownedfcilities locted outside of the home country. The impliction supportingmuch necdotl evidence is tht nlysis nd/or cpitl-intensive work tendsto cluster close to home. arms length reltionships with third prty suppliersor prtners my enle sustntil mteril conversion nd movementoutside of the home country, but most xed costs and heavily investedresources (employees, property, plnt nd equipment) re kept under much closer wtch.

Figure 6: What percentage of your sourcing isdrawn from outside your home country? (dened as headquarter location and seat of executivemanagement)

Figure 7: What percentage of your manufacturing / assembly / production is conducted outside your homecountry?

Figure 8: What percentageof your design activitiesis conducted outside your

home country

16.6%

13.5%

20.9%

22.2%

26.8%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Below10%

10%-50%

25%-50%

50%-75%

75%-100%

30.1%

11.2%

13.5%

20.8%

24.4%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Below10%

10%-50%

25%-50%

50%-75%

75%-100%



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

15© SCM World 2011


The most striking dt gthered in this reserch, however, points to thesurge in efforts to etend supply chins into the customer ses of emerging

economies. Not only do most compnies sell nd deliver sustntilmounts of usiness outside their home countries (Figure 9), ut the shretht reports n increse over the lst yer is nerly 10 times tht whichreports decrese (Figure 10). This rtio of increse to decrese is thehighest of ny ctivity on which we collected dt. Wht seems incresinglycler is tht glolistion of supply chin is mtter of uilding physiclnetworks and relationships that are equally capable of nding and exploitingcost dvntges s well s discovering nd serving new mrkets. a rkeon this leveling of the glol economy, however, remins in res wherehigh leverge work mong functions like plnning, product design ndmngement remin centrlised for most compnies.

Figure 9: What percentageof your sales/deliveries goesto customers outside your homes country?

21.7%

14.6%

18.3%

19.4%

26.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Below10%

10%-50%

25%-50%

50%-75%

75%-100%

42.6%

5.5%

51.9%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Aboutthesame

Decreasing

Increasing

Figure 10: Compared to last year,non-home sales / deliveries are



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

16© SCM World 2011


Globalisation – Country Winners and Losers

The reserch sked supply chin professionls to nme their top three non-home country loctions in terms of sourcing, mnufcturing/ssemly/production nd sles. across ll industries, Chin emerged well hed interms of sourcing, with nerly 37% of respondents clling it their numerone non-home country loction (see Figure 11). Overll, 60% cited Chin stheir numer one, two or three sourcing loction. The closest follower wsthe USA, identied as the number one non-home country sourcing locationy 20% of respondents nd 39% listing the USa s numer one, two orthree. Well down the list ws Jpn which, despite its economic might, wsidentied as a top three sourcing location by only 10% of all respondents.Wht emerges from this dt is tht Chin, the USa nd Germny pperfr more integrted into the world’s mnufcturing supply chins thncompeting territories, most notly Jpn.

“ Wht emerges… is tht Chin, the USa nd Germny pper fr

more integrted into the world’s mnufcturing supply chins thn

competing territories, most notly Jpn ”

1.9%

3.8%

2.1%

3.3%

3.8%

6.1%

5.2%

10.6%

7.7%

11.0%

1.8%

4.4%

2.3%

3.5%

4.2%

6.3%

4.4%

9.4%

10.6%

12.5%

1.5%

1.9%

1.9%

2.3%

2.9%

3.2%

3.9%

7.4%

20.3%

36.6%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%

Brazil

Japan

Canada

Italy

UnitedKingdom

India

France

Germany

USA

China

1

2

3

Figure 11: What are the top threecountries you sourcefrom?



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

17© SCM World 2011


When the topic moves from sourcing to mnufcturing/ssemly/production, new entrnt mkes the top three list, Meico. Looking t Figure 12, lthoughonly 6% of respondents cite Meico s their numer one non-home country

mnufcturing loction, further 8% list it s their numer two

loction nd nother 6% their third. Indi is lso referenced, utnot s top loction, with only 2% stting it to e their numerone non-home country for mnufcturing. almost 7% identify Indis their numer two mnufcturing loction nd just over 7% citeit s their numer three. Chin still emerges s cler leder innon-home mnufcturing, ut there is certinly room for dditionlemerging mrkets, with mny pprently hppy to consider Indi orMeico s their secondry or tertiry loctions for owned or contrctmnufcture. Wht is surprising, however, is the reltive senceof emerging economies often discussed s potentil winners in glol supply chin. among those less prominent thn epected

were Poland and Hungary, neither of which made the top ve as arst, second or third favourite for non-home country manufacturing.Even more surprising ws the sence of brzil, which does noteven mke the top seven.

“ Chin still

emerges s cler

leder in non-home

mnufcturing, ut

there is certinly

room for dditionl

emerging mrkets,

with mny pprently

hppy to considerIndi or Meico ”

Figure 12: What are the top three non-home countries you manufacture / assemble / produce in?

7.2%

2.1%

4.1%

2.1%

4.1%

4.5%

5.8%

6.2%

7.2%

8.2%

6.7%

3.6%

2.2%

1.7%

1.3%

3.6%

8.1%

5.3%

6.7%

15.6%

1.9%

2.1%

2.4%

2.6%

2.8%

4.0%

6.0%

7.6%

9.9%

34.5%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

India

Canada

Brazil

Poland

Hungary

France

Mexico

Germany

USA

China

1

2

3



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

18© SCM World 2011


Design ctivities which, s noted ove, re still fr less likely to hppenrod, re nonetheless incresingly eing done wy from the hedqurter

loction. Figure 13 shows tht the countries winning usiness on this dimensioninclude the USa, Chin nd Indi, ech of which sees dozens of compnieslocting sustntil design work within their orders, ut lso Germny ndthe United Kingdom. This group of countries ws consistently mong thetop ve cited as a number one, two or three location for design work, withthe USa nd Chin essentilly tied t the top nd the United Kingdom ndGermny tied in fourth plce. One oservtion this dt suggests is thtglolistion is in fct reching pst the trditionl imge of looking for lowcost labour. While some design work can be classied as low-cost labour(in prticulr things like CaD support in Indi nd design ctivity for ODMelectronics usinesses in Chin) it is fir to ssume tht relince on designersin Germny, the United Kingdom nd the USa is sed on something otherthn chep wges. Erning surprisingly little respect from respondents werethe countries of the former Soviet sphere of inuence, where only Poland,Hungry nd Czech Repulic received meningful mention, while Russi wsnot cited t ll s top three design loction. It is pprent tht strongengineering eductionl foundtion is not enough to drive usiness in theglol supply chin.

3.9%

3.4%

2.8%

1.7%

2.8%

7.3%

7.9%

9.0%

0.6%

11.2%

2.6%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

3.1%

7.5%

6.6%

10.5%

21.5%

9.6%

2.4%

3.4%

2.7%

3.0%

3.9%

6.6%

6.6%

10.2%

17.7%

18.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

Italy

Japan

Canada

Netherlands

France

UnitedKingdom

Germany

India

China

USA

1

2

3

Figure 13: What arethe top three non-home countries your

design work is in?



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

19© SCM World 2011

1.7%

2.6%

4.9%

3.2%

7.%

11.0%

3.2%

9.0%

13.1%

5.2%

4.6%

2.%

4.4%

3.1%

10.3%

10.%

5.7%

5.7%

13.1%

6.9%

0.4%

1.6%

2.0%

2.3%

3.6%

5.7%

6.4%

10.7%

11.4%

31.4%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

India

Russia

Japan

Brazil

France

UnitedKingdom

Canada

China

Germany

USA

1

2

3


Supply chin strtegies imed t selling outside the home country shouldreect market attractiveness. Unsurprisingly, the world’s biggest singlemrket, the USa, ws fr nd wy the top choice for compnies’ numerone destintion for selling nd distriution ctivities. Eqully predictle is

tht Germny, Frnce nd the United Kingdom ll show up close to thetop s delivery trgets for supply chin strtegists. Emerging mrkets,however, lso feture prominently mong non-home countries high on theradar of supply chain strategists. China is identied as the number one non-home country mrket for lmost 11% of respondents nd numer two orthree for n dditionl 13% (see Figure 14). but Indi, which ws rrelymentioned as a top market, was nonetheless identied as a second or thirdmost importnt mrket y 6% of those surveyed. brzil shows in virtulded het with Jpn s trget mrket, nd even Russi which sw notrction s supply prtner, ws mong the top ten trget mrkets mongour survey respondents. The much discussed bRIC countries re clerly s

engged in this incresingly connected glol supply chin s the developedcountries nd it is y no mens mtter of chsing low cost lour roundthe world.

Figure 14: What are the top threecountries you sell / deliver to?

“ The much discussed bRIC countries re clerly s engged in this

incresingly connected glol supply chin s the developed countries

nd it is y no mens mtter of chsing low cost lour

round the world ”



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

20© SCM World 2011


Emerging Economies and Supply Chain Strategy – Reputation Matters

To understnd wht is driving decisions out engging prtners rod, weasked for assessments of key qualitative factors that might inuence choicesout where to source product or where to crry out mnufcturing ndassembly operations. The data conrms most of what conventional wisdommight predict, ut indictes few gps tht re surprisingly lrge, s wells few tht re surprisingly smll. Figure 15 shows tht, from sourcingperspective for instnce, Chin offers the lowest cost, ut only y reltivelythin mrgin over Indi, which cme second for cost competitiveness.This nrrowing gp is epected wht with Chinese lour, rel estte nddministrtive costs rising rpidly in recent yers. Chin, however, stillretains a huge lead over India when it comes to being identied as a topsourcing country. On other dimensions of ttrctiveness s sourcingloction, however, Chin nd Indi pper essentilly tied, with ner identiclscores for risk nd future potentil. Indi is mrginlly ehind Chin from reputtion perspective it seems, ut still lgs sustntilly in shre of the

totl sourcing pie. The impliction is tht Indi will likely gin ground.

In contrst, the other two bRIC countries – brzil nd Russi – freddrmticlly worse in the opinions of the 750 supply chin professionlssurveyed. brzil, for instnce, is fr ehind oth Indi nd Chin in costcompetitiveness, ut only slightly etter thn Indi in terms of reliilitynd risk. Even on the dimension of future potentil, brzil trils oth Chinnd Indi. Russi is worse on ll dimensions, with poor showing for costcompetitiveness s well s disml ssessments for reliility nd risk. Welso gthered dt on South afric to see whether the africn opportunityws meningful to the wider supply chin community nd, lthough its

reliility nd risk pper resonle, its score concerning cost positionppers unlikely to ttrct much usiness s glol sourcing hu.

2.4

4.06

3.1

2.51

2.4

2.42

3.59

3.5

2.59

3.33

2.59

2.75

2.71

2.32

2.4

2.53

2.96

2.66

2.09

2.76

2.4

4.06

3.1

2.51

2.4

0 1 2 3 4 5

SouthAfrica

China

India

Russia

Brazil

Cost

Reliability

Risk

Futurepoten8al

Average

Figure 15: From asourcing perspective,average rating out of 5 against the followingcriteria (1=poor,5=excellent)



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

21© SCM World 2011


The story for supply chin professionls considering bRIC countries for

mnufcturing is essentilly the sme s we see in sourcing. Figure 16revels tht Chin nd Indi hve sustntil cost dvntges nd, lthoughBrazil’s reputation for quality is signicantly better than that of India, theoverll ttrctiveness of these loctions clerly fvours the “IC” in bRIC.

Emerging mrkets re more thn full prtners in the glolistion of supplychin, driving huge swings of ctivity wy from home countries in serch of cost advantages and specic skills abroad. Not all emerging economies arecreted equl, however, with cler leder in Chin nd fst pprochingchallenger in India. What may nally close the loop in global supply chainsis the incresing importnce of emerging mrkets s sles nd distriution

trgets for compnies. Russi my e loser on the supply side ut itsppel s n end mrket will open doors for suppliers in tht country tocompete for slice of the pie.

Figure 16: From a manufacturing perspective, average rating out of 5 against the following criteria(1=poor, 5=excellent)

2.63

3.13

2.6

2.51

3.1

2.43

4.06

3.76

2.5

2.7

0 1 2 3 4 5

SouthAfrica

China

India

Russia

Brazil

Cost

Quality



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

22© SCM World 2011



► Over 80% of supply chin eecutives report selling nd shipping toemerging mrkets with lrge portion – 38% of the totl – syingtht their supply chin strtegies for emerging mrkets re primrilyoriented to selling nd delivering in these mrkets

► Design work is less likely to e conducted outside the home country,with over hlf of the respondents sserting tht less thn 10% of design work is eecuted rod

► Not only re most compnies selling nd delivering sustntil mountsof usiness outside their home country, ut the portion reporting n

increse over the lst yer equtes to pproimtely ten times theshre tht reports decrese

► Chin emerges s the leder in terms of sourcing, with nerly 37% of respondents nming it their numer one non-home priority

► With regrd mnufcturing/ssemly/production, Meico is on the rises non-home country, with 6% citing the ntion s their numer oneloction, 8% s their numer two loction nd 6% sserting Meico stheir third most importnt foreign mnufcturing country



© SCM World 2011

T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

SUSTaINabILITY



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

24© SCM World 2011

SUSTaINabILITY

Sustinility hs ecome new ttleground of supply chin competitiveness,with high prole initiatives recently taken by the likes of Wal-Mart and Nike to take

sustinility performnce of the supply chin to higher level. Sustinilityoften includes oth environmentl responsiility nd socil responsiility; theformer referring to control nd continment of the cron footprint, energyusge nd pollution of the supply chin, nd the ltter focusing on the helth,sfety nd tretment of lour, s well s contriuting to the well-eing of locl communities. Indeed, Wl-Mrt hs discovered tht, lthough there repotentilly gret svings to e gined from sustinility efforts internlly, thepotentil is much greter with their etended supply chin.

To wht etent is sustinility prt of supply chin mngement’s DNa? Whtre the sources tht drive compnies’ sustinility efforts? Do we see sustntildifferences in the environmentl versus socil dimensions of sustinility?

Wht hve een the results nd wht is the future outlook?

Just s mny ig inititives in supply chin improvement, the strongest drivingforce of sustinility inititives derive from top mngement; nmely, seniormngement nd the ord, with Figure 17 reveling tht 65% of respondentschrcterise pressure from senior mngement nd the ord s the source of their sustinility efforts. Hving top mngement s the source often menstht the support of top mngement is lso in plce, which is importnt for thesuccess of such efforts. The second source of sustinility efforts is pressurefrom customers (46%), followed y pressure from government (35%). The roleof ctivists nd similr stkeholders, nd of leding suppliers, tends to e smll.In this dynmic mrket, mny compnies feel pressure from customers nd the

government to py ttention to sustinility, ut it is even more often the csethat top leaders of rms see the need and lead the efforts themselves.Why would the ord, s the top leder of compny, push for sustinility?

Figure 17: How would you characterise the source of your sustainability efforts?

11.2%

16.2%

35.0%

45.7%

65.0%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Pushbysomeleadingsuppliers

Pressurefromac8vistsandsimilar

stakeholders

Pressurefromgovernment

Pressurefromcustomers

Pressurefromseniormanagement

andboard



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

25© SCM World 2011

It turns out tht the overwhelming mjority (75%) is concerned with creting positive customer imge nd enhncing rnd equity – see Figure 18.Interestingly, some compnies re directing their sustinility efforts due tocustomer pressure directly, while mny more due to top mngement. but thereson for such direction t ord-level lso lies in positively winning customers

through rnd imge. However, mny respondents (42%) lso feel tht theord is concerned with sustinility in order to stisfy government regultions,pursuing sustinility due to governmentl pressure directly or indirectly. Ingenerl, compny ords pper very sensitive to vriety of sources thtrequire them to pursue sustinility: to fend off shreholder or eternl PRconcerns; to ensure no disruption of supply; to ensure return on investmentthrough cost svings; nd to deliver return on investment through slesincrease. However, the most signicant underlying forces that drive companies’ sustinility efforts re customer pressure nd imge or government pressurend regultions, which then result in top mngement leding such efforts.

The Si Sigm process cycle is good frmework for us to look t when consideringthe sustinility efforts of compnies. Just like qulity improvements, the SiSigm process clls for the Mesure, Identify, anlyse, act cycle. Firstly, it isnecessry to mesure the chrcteristics nd qulity of the process in orderto gauge any errors, which can then be identied and resolved. This is thefundmentl pproch for qulity mngement nd, similrly with sustinility,we hve to strt with mesurement. Of course, it goes without sying thtperformnce mesurement is not useful if it is not used y mngement, so this

is out mngement hving visiility over performnce mesures.

SUSTaINabILITY

Figure 18: What is your judgement of your board’s view on sustainability?

22.0%

30.1%

30.5%

32.0%

42.2%

75.0%

0.0% 10.0%20.0% 30.0%40.0% 50.0%60.0% 70.0% 0.0%

TofendoffshareholderorexternalPR

concerns

Toensurenodisrup8onofsupply

Tohavereturnoninvestmentthroughsales

increase

Tohavereturnoninvestmentthroughcost

savings

Tosa8sfygovernmentregula8ons

Tocreateposi8vecustomerimageand

enhancebrandequity



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

26© SCM World 2011

Indeed, a signicant majority puts performance visibility measures in place, with75% of respondents climing they hve visiility of environmentl sustinilityperformnces (Figure 19), such s violtions of environmentl stndrds orgovernment regultions cross their internl opertions. 77.3% hve visiility

of the cron footprint cross their internl opertions, while 76.1% hve similrvisiility of their socil sustinility mesures, such s violtions of lourcomplinces cross their internl opertions. There is therefore strong senseof success regarding the rst step of the Six Sigma process for sustainabilityefforts cross internl opertions.

New mesureSystem updteStructurl correction

TrckingVisiilityaccessiility

Resolution eecutionCommuniction

Restortion to in-control

Wht is out of control?Wht if scenriosDignosis/Root cusenlysis

SUSTaINabILITY

Six Sigma Improvement Cycle

Mesure

anlyse

Identifyact

27.%

27.5%

26.4%

29.0%

24.1%

30.1%

75.0%

77.3%

76.1%

0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%0.0%90.0%

QocialsustainabilitymeasuresBsuchasviola8ons

oflaborcompliance)

Carbonfootprintmeasures

QustainabilitymeasuresBsuchasviola8onsof

environmentalstandardsorgovernmentregula8ons)

Internally

Immediatesuppliers

Extendedsuppynetwork

Figure 19: How do you gain visibility of …?



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

27© SCM World 2011

However, on nlysing visiility eternlly cross immedite suppliers or theetended supply network, it is different story. There is fr greter concernregrding violtions of environmentl stndrds, government regultions orlour complinces, with Figure 20 highlighting tht only 19-30% hve visiilityover such mtters. additionlly, most respondents do not hve visiility over

immedite suppliers or the etended network regrding cron footprintviolations either. This represents a signicant vacuum and, although it probablyrequires much greter effort to gin such visiility compred with internlopertions, it is the eternl environment which potentilly represents the mostvulnerle prt of the overll supply chin. Compnies therefore need to work onthe visiility of the etended supply chin to even egin the Si Sigm processcycle for sustinility.

The second step of the Six Sigma process cycle is identication, which requiresmonitoring systems to check, verify nd vlidte performnce mesures nd, ineffect, turn visiility into monitoring process. Similr to visiility, round 80%

of respondents re monitoring their internl opertions with respect to violtionsin the environmental and social front, as well as carbon footprints. Signicantlyless (etween 20-29%), however, re monitoring immedite suppliers or theetended supply network on such mesures. Once gin, lrge vcuum eists.

Once errors are identied and assignable causes and opportunities are analysed,the qulity improvement process then moves to the act step, where ny fultsare resolved, process modications are made and products are potentiallyredesigned for qulity improvement. Unfortuntely, compnies sometimes filto ct in mking such necessry sustinility investments. Respondents wereinvited to describe the obstacles by rating them on a scale of one to ve, withve being the most valid. Figure 21 illustrates that the three top barriers to

action are: a lack of resources (45% with rating of four or ve); no measurablereturns (45%); nd lck of customer cre nd price pressure (42%). To lesseretent ppers the lck of knowledge nd epertise to pursue improvementprojects (35%).

SUSTaINabILITY

19.7%

19.9%

21.%

22.9%

2.%

27.%

1.6%

1.0%

79.1%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%100.0%

Socialsustainability

measures(suchas

viola8onsoflabour

compliance)

Sustainability

performance

measures(suchas

viola8onsof

environmental

standardsor

Carbonfootprint

measures

Internally

ImmediateSuppliers

Extendedsupply

network

Figure 20: How have youimplemented monitoringsystems in place …?



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

28© SCM World 2011

It hs een oserved tht, with customer pressure directly or indirectly,compnies rect y moving forwrd with sustinility efforts, either directly orthrough top mngement ledership. but the reverse is lso true. When there islck of customer pressure, sustinility efforts cn stll. In order for compnies

to mke concrete steps in implementing sustinility projects, the right level of resources has to be there and a clearly quantiable measure of returns shouldlso e in plce.

In supply chin sustinility, the need to ct often requires working withsuppliers for improvement. Such form of supplier collortion in turn requiresoth “sticks” nd “crrots.” Regrding the “sticks”, compnies pper to rect

to supplier reches in sustinility stndrds y wrning nd then tkingpunitive ctions, while some ct even more promptly without wrning. Wrningor not, Figure 22 shows tht most compnies use reduced usiness s the “stick” (73% would reduce usiness fter wrning nd 56% would reduceusiness without wrning), while some ct even more drsticlly, termintingthe usiness reltionship with suppliers (36% fter wrning nd 42% withoutwrning).

Very few companies use monetary nes as a means to penalise suppliers (12%with our without wrning). Indeed, the impct of sustinility reches is oftennot something that one can measure nancially. This could explain why fewcompanies use monetary nes as a means to pressure suppliers (which couldlso hve the dded effect of setting precedent for other suppliers). Indeed,fced with the risk of reduced usiness or termintion of reltionships, suppliersre fr more sensitive to the pressure from customers on sustinility. Thisctully gives further credence to the oservtion erlier tht mny compniespursue sustinility due to direct or indirect push y customers.

SUSTaINabILITY

Figure 21: What do you see as the major obstacles on sustainability investments?

13.0%

7.5%

14.6%

4.7%

3.9%

12.6%

32.1%

27.5%

27.%

21.3%

1.2%

32.3%

2.6%

33.6%

2.0%

36.5%

29.2%

27.6%

16.3%

1.5%

19.9%

23.2%

24.5%

14.%

10.1%

12.%

9.7%

14.3%

24.3%

12.6%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

Lackofresources

Lackofknowledgeandexper8seto

pursueimprovementprojects

Customersdonotcareandprice

pressure

Supplierresistance

Internalresistance

Nomeasurablereturns



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

29© SCM World 2011

41.9%

35.5%

55.9%

72.7%

11.7%

12.5%

0.0% 20.0%40.0%60.0%0.0%

Nowarning.Immediate

ac8ontaSenas

Warningfirst,followed

byMonetaryfines

Reducedbusiness

Immediatetermina8onof

businessrela8onship

7.6%

21.5%

31.6%

43.6%

47.7%

66.3%

0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Pricepremiums

\eertermsandcondi8ons

Publicrecogni8on(similarto"Qupplierof

theYear")

YouinAestintrainingandeduca8on

Increasedbusinessengagements

Preferredsupplier(priorityforfuture

business)

Figure 23 revels how compnies hve lso used vriety of incentives to serves “crrots” for sustinility improvements. Stronger usiness reltionships

in the form of preferred supplier sttus or incresed usiness enggementsre the positive incentives tht most compnies seem to use (66% nd 48%respectively). Other positive incentives include: supporting suppliers withinvestment in trining nd eduction (44%); pulic recognition (similr to ‘Supplier of the Yer awrd’- 32%); nd improved terms nd conditions (21.5%),while very few use price premiums s n incentive (8%). It is interesting thtcompanies neither like to use direct monetary nes nor monetary rewards for “sticks” nd “crrots”.

SUSTaINabILITY

Figure 22: If suppliers arefound to have breaches insustainability standards, what are the penalties?

Figure 23: What incentives do you put in place to support sustainability improvements of your suppliers?

“ The most effective mens is still to pressure suppliers through

usiness volumes or termintion of the usiness reltionship ”



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

30© SCM World 2011

.4%

5.9%

12.2%

7.7%

1.3%

23.9%

2.6%

35.2%

23.1%

26.1%

34.2%

36.1%

29.9%

34.4%

20.3%

1.3%

17.3%

13.%

19.2%

13.5%

15.2%

12.0%

.9%

15.6%

21.%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%

ZeworimproAesalesopportuni8es

Qupplierrela8ons<ipimproAement

Customersa8sOac8onimproAement

Gpera8ngcostreuc8on

deuceAiola8onsoOgoAernment

regula8onsanlaws

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 24: What kind of results have you obtained from your sustainability efforts? (1=insignicant, 5=substantial)

Rther, potentil impct to the usiness reltionship tends to e the strongestmens to penlise or to incentivise suppliers. The Si Sigm Process Cyclethen reverts to mesurement, where the results of compny’s ctions rethen mesured nd understood. It is therefore vitl to oserve the results tht

respondents hve secured nd, interestingly, they hve een quitepositive in multiple wys. agin, respondents ssessed the differentdimensions by a scale of insignicant to substantial, with ve signifyingmost substantial. Analysing Figure 24, the most signicant impactis customer stisfction improvement (47%), followed y reducedviolations of government regulations (44%). Other benets includesupplier reltionship improvement (34.5%); new or improved slesopportunities (32%); nd operting cost reduction (31%). Theseresults echo the erlier conclusion s to why compnies pursuesustinility. It ws indicted ove tht this is due to customer orgovernmentl pressure, which results in top mngement ledershippushing sustinility improvements. Indeed, such improvement effortsresult in greter customer stisfction levels nd reduced reches

of regultions nd stndrds. Ultimtely, customer reltionships ndusiness opportunities form the most importnt cornerstone of llsustinility ctivities.

It is gratifying to see a signicant number of respondents indicating that theyre stepping up their efforts on sustinility inititives. It is lso insightfulto see tht their inititives re tking multiple directions, with no single pthsignicantly dominating any other. Respondents were asked to rate the outlookof sustainability efforts on a scale of one to ve, with ve representing asignicant increase in efforts. As can be seen from Figure 25, companies areincresing efforts cross internl opertions (63%); internl product design(56%); immedite suppliers (51%); the etended supply network (51%);

nd customers (51%). Hence, there is no single direction to which compniesgrvitte s they recognise tht sustinility improvements must e workedon in multiple wys. The importnt point here is tht the results do indeedindicte tht sustinility forms n integrl prt of compny’s supply chinimprovement journey.

SUSTaINabILITY

“ Ultimtely,

customer

reltionships

nd usiness

opportunities with

customers form

the most importnt

cornerstone of

ll sustinility

ctivities ”



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

31© SCM World 2011

SUSTaINabILITY

Figure 25: What is the future outlook on sustainability efforts? (1=signicantly reduce efforts, 3=no change,5=signicantly increase efforts


► Sixty ve per cent of respondents characterise pressure from seniormngement nd the ord s the sources of sustinility efforts

► a mere 19-30% hve visiility over immedite suppliers regrding

potentil violtions of environmentl stndrds, governmentlregultions or lour complinces

► Most compnies use reduced usiness s penlty for supplier rechesof stndrds, with 73% sserting they would reduce usiness fter wrning nd 56% doing so without wrning

► as mens of incentivising suppliers, 66% of respondents offerpreferred supplier sttus s usiness reltionship while 48% offerthe prospect of incresed usiness enggements

16.0%

11.%

11.0%

1.%

16.1%

34.7%

3.9%

40.6%

37.5%

46.%

40.0%

39.7%

41.0%

36.1%

31.9%

6.7%

7.%

6.2%

5.2%

3.4%

2.6%

1.%

1.2%

2.4%

1.%

0.0% 5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%

Customers

Extenesupplynetwork

Immeiatesuppliers

Internalprouctesign

Internalopera8ons

1

2

3

4

5



© SCM World 2011

T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

TaLENT MaNaGEMENTaND SKILLSDEVELOPMENT



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

33© SCM World 2011

Much discussion has centred on the topic of supply chain talent of late; how to ndit, develop it nd retin it. Underlying much of the tlk is n implicit ssumption

tht tody’s supply chin professionl needs fr more generl usiness cumenthn the mterils mngement technicin of old. To understnd how rel thisprolem is, nd where meningful chnge might e possile, respondents weresked series of questions out wht types of skills re vlued, how they reidentied and managed and whether there are any consistent weak points in thesystem of people development tht feeds our profession. The net tkewys retht institutionl skill development is severely lcking not only on the jo utlso prior to ny hiring decisions, while prolems re most cute t the middlemngement level.

Supply Chain Talent Gap

The rst question asked whether talent acquisition and development is trulya problem and, if so, how serious. Figure 26 clearly conrms that there is aprolem, with over 90% of respondents clling it t lest “n importntchllenge”. Interestingly, the portion who descried tlent cquisition nddevelopment “one of their top chllenges” ws four times the percentge syingthat it was not a problem. Considering how many re drills the typical supplychain professional faces on a daily basis, it seems signicant that over a thirdof those surveyed classied stafng as such an important challenge. This datasuggests we hve n issue here which, while unlikely to e s urgent s thetypicl plnt or shipping emergency, is nonetheless perceived to e of gretimportnce.

TaLENT MaNaGEMENT aND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Figure 26: The acquisition and development of supply chain talent in your organisation is

8.6%

34.9%

56.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Notachallenge

Oneofyourtopchallenges

Animportantchallenge



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

34© SCM World 2011

To the question of whether this prolem is worsening, the dt indictes cler, leit not overwhelming, trend to the negtive. Figure 27 not

only shows tht 22% of respondents elieve the issue to hve ecomemore of chllenge over the pst three yers ginst 14% who syit hs ecome esier, ut tht the mjority (63%) descrie it s perennil prolem. It is likely tht depressed economic conditions since2008 hve softened the jo mrket for supply chin professionls sthey hve elsewhere, which my eplin the portion of compniesciting esier tlent cquisition recently. With this cvet in mind, itseems signicant that more nd hiring to have actually worsened thanesed. as the economy reignites, one wonders whether this gp willegin to relly hurt.

Digging into the lifecycle of tlent mngement offers some clues s to wherewe hve our iggest chllenges. Finding tlent up-front is cler pin point,

with 17% of respondents rting this tsk s most chllenging. Things pperto e less prolemtic with those lredy on ord where, developing tlentnd mesuring nd differentiting skills is incresingly esy. Where the lifecycleof tlent gin poses mngement prolems is with creer progression.Respondents fairly decisively dened “offering talented staff a compelling careerprogression” s their iggest overll chllenge. Following this pressure point,mny lso found retining tlent to e n issue. One impliction of this dt istht personnel development procedures in supply chin orgnistions my stille tuned to ringing on ord nd mnging technicl skills rther thn roderusiness skills. This hypothesis might eplin the reltive ese of mesurementnd sic development, s trditionl skills dominte the erly prt of typiclsupply chin creer, ut then rek down s responsiilities roden to includeusiness decision mking.

Figure 27: The acquisition and development of supply chain talent has

“ … personnel

development

procedures in supplychin orgnistions

my still e tuned to

ringing on ord nd

mnging technicl

skills rther thn

roder usiness

skills ”


14.8%

22.1%

63.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0%30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%70.0%

Becomeeasiernowthanthreeyears

ago

Becomemoredifficultinthepastthree

years

Alwaysbeenachallenge



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

35© SCM World 2011

This hypothesis is further supported y dt from nother question whichsked where in the reporting hierrchy of orgnistions the chllenge of tlentmngement is most prolemtic. as Figure 28 highlights, 39% of respondentsselected mid mngement s the point t which tlent mngement is mostdifcult. Only 17% said the issue was worst at senior management level and a

mere 7% felt the prolem ws worst t entry level. It is therefore evident thtrespondents encounter n impsse chieving creer progression t tht pointwhere sic skills re no longer enough ut senior uthority hs not yet eengined. Not only is the offering of compelling creer progression prolem,but general management of talent at this crucial juncture is also difcult. Thesepeople re of course the most ctive in intercting with outsiders, includingcustomers nd suppliers, s well s cting s mentors nd cretkers for these of the orgnistion.

an interesting ngle lso involves the sophistiction of supply chin professionlsoutside the orgnistion with whom professionls need to collorte, whetherthey e suppliers, service prtners or customers. after ll, much of wht supplychin wrestles with is inter-enterprise collortion. The dt indictes moretroule with customers nd mterils suppliers thn with service providers. Itis hrdly surprising tht service providers fre reltively well in this ssessments so mny strive to offer “solutions” to their customers, ut the gp is, if nything, smller thn one might epect. also surprising is the virtul tie in

the dt etween mterils suppliers nd customers. Customers, one couldssume, might epect more of the urden for collortive prolem-solving tofll on suppliers. The dt, however, shows little difference. It is possile thtsuppliers still see themselves more nrrowly thn their own mrketing pitchestypiclly clim.

Figure 28: Talent management is

“ Respondents encounter n impsse … t the point where sic skills

re no longer enough ut senior uthority hs not yet een gined”


7.4%

17.4%

36.2%

39.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Moreofaproblematentrylevelposi8ons

Moreofaproblematseniorleadership

posi8ons

Similaracrossalllevels

Moreofaproblematmidlevelfunc8onal

posi8ons



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

36© SCM World 2011

Filling the Gap – Sources of Talent

One remedy to the problem of nding talent might be to look for externalmrkers of skill tht could relily e used to screen wider pools of recruitment.Four ctegories of such eternl mrkers were put forwrd to respondents:

► Professional Associations providing certication – such as APICS, ISM orSupply Chin Council

► Universities, grdute or undergrdute

► Previous professional experience, specically in industry

► Previous professional experience, specically in consulting

The ggregte dt shows strong preference for professionl eperience withinindustry. an overwhelming 54% descried this s the most useful eternlmrker for tlent (see Figure 29). The gp etween industry eperience ndthe second most vlued mrker, university degree, ws huge. It is cler thtsupply chin orgnistions would rther uild their tems with rw mteriltken from competitors thn try to uild it from scrtch with generl supplychin skills. University pedigree nd consulting ckground scored resonlywell cross the reserch smple, with slight edge to university trining s second screen fter industry eperience.

Figure 29: Please rate the following external markers of talent (1=least valuable and 5=most valuable


13.3%

54.1%

12.4%

6.6%

35.%

3.1%

45.3%

25.1%

34.0%

5.9%

32.5%

41.4%

12.0%

1.5%

7.%

19.1%

4.%

0.4%

1.9%

7.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Professionalexperience,consul8ng

Professionalexperience,industry

Universitydegrees

[ssocia8oncer8ca8onB[PLCS,LSM,

SCCetc)

1

2

3

4

5



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

37© SCM World 2011

The most surprising nd telling informtion comes from the dt for ssocitioncertications. These entities, many of which have been established for decadesand which generally have thousands of paying members, are specicallychrtered to dvnce professionl skills. They re, in fct, ment to solvethe tlent mngement prolem for oth the employer nd the employed yproviding training, testing and certication against a raft of traditional technicalsupply chin mngement skills. Despite this, respondents decisively rtedassociation certication at the bottom of the stack. The explanation for this poorshowing may lie in the governance of most of these bodies. Many are non-protorgnistions run y ords with smll numer of professionl dministrtorsor permnent stff. Their decision mking process is thus somewht politiclnd cn e slow. It is possile tht chnges ffecting the profession re onlygrdully working their wy into the mission nd curricul of these orgnistions.Whtever the cuse, it is pprent tht ssocitions which should e prticulrlyuseful for mid-creer professionls re missing the mrk.

We lso wnted to get some ide of which ssocitions, universities nd consultingrms provided the best hunting ground for talent. Respondents were asked tonme the top three of ech, in order of preference, nd lthough the dt is yno means scientic, it does offer some idea as to the leading institutions. Figure30 revels tht t the top of the list re two universities with estlished supplychin progrmmes s well s top tier usiness schools: Stnford nd MIT, othof which lso hve strong engineering schools nd estlished supply chinreserch progrmmes. Michign Stte University lso scores very well with21 total mentions by respondents, including 10 as a rst preference. Harvard,which lcks the engineering se common to most of the schools on the list,scores well, perhps ecuse of its strong nd lrge Mba progrmme, while

Craneld, Penn State and Arizona State all appear frequently in the research,presumly ecuse of their dedicted supply chin functionl depth. Roundingout the 10 fetured here re Cmridge University, INSEaD nd Michign, noneof which cn e sid to e specilists in supply chin ut ll of which hvedeep, estlished progrmmes with strength in some comintion of usiness,economics nd engineering.


2

4

2

5

8

2

4

0

5

3

2

1

3

4

8

4

7

11

7

7

4

5

3

2

5

7

7

10

10

17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

INSEAD

Univ.ofMichigan

Cambridge

ArizonaState

PennState

CranfieldSchoolofManagement

Harvard

MichiganStateUniversity

MIT

Stanford

#1

#2

#3

Figure 30: Please indicate your top three University preferences



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

38© SCM World 2011

0

0

3

20

18

16

2

1

3

27

18

35

5

9

9

14

15

87

0 20 40 60 80 100

CILT

CPSM

CIPS

ISM

SCC

APICS

#1

#2

#3

among the ssocitions, opinions were fr more polrised with only three entitiesidentied by large numbers of respondents. As can be seen from Figure 31, by

far the most commonly cited number one preference for certication bodies wasAPICS. APICS is ofcially the Association for Operations Management, althoughthe cronym originlly stood for americn Production nd Inventory ControlSociety. bosting over 40,000 memers, this ody hs een in eistence for overfty years with a mission to educate supply chain professionals. It was cited asthe numer one choice 87 times, sustntilly more thn the second nd thirdmost common top choices; Institute for Supply Mngement (ISM) nd theSupply Chin Council (SCC). In fct ll other nmed ssocitions outside of thesethree ccounted for only 71 totl mentions s top choice. The concentrtion of opinion round these three held for second nd third preferred ssocitionsmong respondents. Wht is cler from the dt is tht aPICS, s well s ISMnd SCC, re well known nd well regrded. Wht is prolemtic, however, is

the poor stte of stisfction mong the very individuls these odies re mentto serve; tht is, mid-creer professionls needing skill development.

Previous eperience with consulting orgnistions should indicte somefmilirity with conceptul models of supply chin, technology enlementnd other importnt skills like chnge mngement, project mngement ndgovernnce. as such, consulting ckgrounds offer mrker for some skills thtare generally hard to nd elsewhere. Looking at Figure 32, Accenture featuresprominently, achieving the most mentions as rst, second or third preferenceconsultncy mong hiring supply chin orgnistions. Following closely wereMcKinsey nd SaP.


Figure 31: Pleaseindicate your topthree Associationcertication

preferences



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

39© SCM World 2011

The story of these top three consulting rms as markers of talent is reective of the wider challenge playing out in the supply chain talent discussion. SAP is rstnd foremost softwre compny selling nd instlling ERP (Enterprise ResourcePlnning) systems to thousnds of compnies round the world. Consultntsfrom SaP should ring deep knowledge of technology enlement, usinessprocess design nd project mngement; skills tht ssume sound usiness

strtegy eists efore process nd system design commences. McKinsey on theother hand is the quintessential strategy consulting rm with general businessepertise uilt on the ck of thousnds of Mbas round the world. Consultntsfrom McKinsey work on the ssumption tht someone will follow their strtegicdvice with pproprite technicl pluming. accenture tops this list perhpsin prt y virtue of its sheer size, ut lso ecuse it promises to ring othstrtegy nd technology in equl mesure to its clients. The wider supply chintlent chllenge is ll out uilding usiness vlue on technicl foundtion.This list of consulting pedigree preferences reects that aim. Looking at the otherrms receiving frequent mentions from our respondents, one sees the same mixof skills implicit in these well known nmes: IbM, Deloitte, aT Kerney, Orcle,bCG, KPMG nd PRTM.

Figure 32: Please indicate your top three sources of professional experience by consultancy


2

2

4

2

0

7

7

5

2

7

3

3

2

4

1

7

6

7

4

10

3

3

3

4

5

7

8

13

17

1

0 5 10 15 20

PTM

KPMG

BCG

Oracle

ATKearney

Rel9ie

IBM

SAP

McKinsey

Accenture

#1

#2

#3



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

40© SCM World 2011

Essential Supply Chain Skills

When someone hers the term “supply chin”, some immeditely think logisticsnd trnsporttion, while others think sourcing nd procurement. aPICS, sdiscussed ove, csts the net more widely to encompss opertions, termtht is oth estlished yet vgue. Survey respondents were sked to identifyspecically which skills are essential, which are nice to have and which are not

prt of supply chin t ll. The model pplied to this effort ws theeleven sttion supply chin tlent model developed nd pulished yaMR Reserch severl yers go nd mintined with the help of group of prctitioners from industry nd y tem of reserchers tGrtner. This model includes seven functionl skills rnging from theovious (pln, source, mke, deliver) to the emerging (new productdevelopment nd lunch, customer mngement, post-sles support)s well s four enling skill sets (governnce, chnge mngement,performnce mngement nd technology enlement).

at the ggregte level, the dt shows discipline in trnsition with lrgepercentges of responses citing s “essentil” the four core skills of supplychin: pln, source, mke nd deliver. Figure 33 revels tht, mong these four,plnning cme top with 85% of respondents identifying this skill s essentil.This is no surprise s supply chin orgnistions, whether ll-encompssing withthousnds of direct reports or shred service overly with only hndful of stff,must invrily provide the core demnd forecsting, inventory plnning ndproduction scheduling skills needed to coordinte orders cross the usiness.Only 1% of respondents went so fr s to sy the plnning is “not prt of supplychin”. Plnning, it seems, is the nucleus round which the modern supply chinprofessionl is uilt.

“ Plnning, it

seems, is the nucleus

round which the

modern supply chin

professionl is uilt ”


17.6%

2.1%

64.%

77.4%

52.4%

6.%

5.0%

47.7%

0.5%

76.4%

37.1%

60.5%

49.1%

27.6%

19.4%

3.2%

2.0%

13.%

47.9%

17.3%

20.%

52.2%

21.9%

22.%

7.6%

3.2%

9.3%

3.2%

1.2%

4.4%

2.2%

2.%

10.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 0.0% 90.0%

NPDL

Post-salessupport

Customermanagement

Deliver

Make

Source

Plan

Technologyenablement

Performancemanagement

Changemanagement

Governance

Notpartofsupplychai

Nicetohave

Vssen8al

Figure 33: Pleaseidentify the skills youconsider essential, niceto have or not part of the supply chain withinyour organisation’stalent management



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

41© SCM World 2011

adjcent core skills like delivery nd sourcing re generlly considered essentily the gret mjority, suggesting tht the most stripped down version of

modern supply chin professionl is someone who cn pln mterils movementoth inound nd outound. “Mke”, term derived from its igger rothermnufcture, remins something tht supply chin still, occsionlly t lest,does not control. Over 9% of respondents went so fr s to sy tht this is noteven prt of supply chin. Other reserch hs shown tht mnufcturing isstedily moving under the swy of the wider supply chin nd our dt doesindeed sy tht over hlf of respondents consider mnufcturing n essentilskill, ut still orgnistionl structure seems to stnd in the wy of true end-to-end ow of materials from upstream source to ultimate customer delivery.

Customer mngement, in fct, my e one of the most importnt rekthroughsevident in the data, identied by almost 65% of respondents as essential.

The implictions of this very strong preference for customer skills include notonly grdution of supply chin from its heritge s pure cost centre, utlso n ppetite for understnding demnd s driver of the entire supplychin. In contrst, lesser weight ws ssigned to the two other functionl skillstht round out complete nd closed loop supply chin: post-sles support;nd new product design (NPDL) nd lunch. Despite the fct tht customersatisfaction and retention certainly drive repeat buying and protability, only28% of respondents felt this skill ws essentil to supply chin. Worse still,NPDL, which llows ll functions chnce to lern nd improve with itertivetrips through sourcing, rmping, delivering nd retiring genertions of product,ws regrded s “not prt of supply chin” more frequently thn it ws clledessentil. Supply chin professionls re epected to lern from customers, ut

pprently not from the full lifecycle of the products they mke nd deliver.

A key nding in the data points to the high value placed on enabling skills,especilly performnce mngement nd chnge mngement. Tht theseskills are considered essential by four fths of respondents clearly indicates thatmost supply chin orgnistions see their plce in the compny s driver of strtegy, not merely support for the usiness. Even technology enlement,a function with a clear owner in the ofce of the Chief Information Ofcer, isviewed s essentil y nerly hlf of the popultion nd nice to hve y themajority of the rest. These skills are not easy to nd in technical training coursesand certication programmes, especially when combined with business strategynd process design.


“ That these skills are considered essential by four fths of

respondents indictes clerly tht most supply chin orgnistions see

their plce in the compny s driver of strtegy, not merely support

for the usiness ”



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

42© SCM World 2011

Managing the Talent You Have

Reclling tht mesuring nd differentiting tlent ws the lest chllengingphse of the tlent lifecycle, dt on pproches to metrics shows degree of sophistiction tht is encourging. almost two thirds of respondents sy they useoth qulittive nd quntittive mesures to mnge their people. Consideringthe importnce plced on skills sometimes regrded s “soft” like chngemngement, it is no surprise tht qulittive mesures mtter. Of course,trditionl core skills like plnning nd delivery lend themselves to quntittivemetrics like forecst ccurcy or on-time, in-full delivery. If nything, the isin fvour of qulittive mesurement in the results suggests supply chin tlentmngement is resistnt to the tempttion to reduce performnce to the purelynumericl stndrds so esy to come y in much of the dily work of supplychin.

beyond mesuring tlent, lrge mjority is willing to invest in trining nd othereduction to try to uild it. Figure 34 illustrtes tht only 2% of respondentsdmitted to spending no money while 16% sy they spend over 5% of the fullyloded cost of personnel on trining. The overll verge spend on triningappears to be at least 3% of personnel expenses which is signicantly morethn the cost of n occsionl online course or group workshop. Mngementppers prepred to put their money where their mouth is on this mtter ndlrgely on fith.

Figure 34: How much, as a percentage of fully loaded cost, do you spend on training / skills development / external education?


16.0%

42.1%

39.9%

2.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

5%+

2-5%

0-2%

Zero



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

43© SCM World 2011

as Figure 35 highlights, the percentge of respondents who trck performnceimprovement following trining s n ROI mesure (22%) is dwrfed y the

portion tht doesn’t mesure ROI t ll (60%). Tlent development, it seems,is worth pying for.

Coming full circle on the tlent lifecycle lso clls for look t wht hppens whentlent is lost. We sked our respondents to rnk, in order of severity, the prolemsthey face when talent walks out the door. The ndings point to an increasingrole for supply chin s source of strtegic vlue to the competitiveness of compnies. Lest worrying y wide mrgin ws lost production, something thtshould rise to the top in low skill domin where replcement stff re redilyville ut work stoppges hurt. More concerning ws lost product intellectulproperty, suggesting tht supply chin personnel re prt of mking the producta success and able to inict some damage if they walk away with that skill. Stillhigher rnking s concern ws the cost of trnsition to replcement. Skillspprently re not so esily cptured in mnul nd hnded from person to

person. The top concern, however, sys it ll: lost process intellectul property.Coupling this nding with data on preferred markers of talent for new hires(industry eperience domintes) nd the strong willingness to invest in triningclerly shows tht top supply chin tlent is prt of the mke-up tht mkes compny successful.

Tlent mngement is priority for supply chin professionls ecuse the gmeis chnging from sic set of technicl tsks to n integrted we of usinessand engineering trade-offs. Senior executives nd it difcult to locate theseskills in the mrketplce nd hrder still to hold tem together s knowledgeuilds over the course of creer. Where once there were jos, we now hve profession.

Figure 35: How do you measure ROI on training expenditures?


21.0%

22.0%

57.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Wetrackcomp6e8onu86isa8onrates

Wetrackperformanceimprovementsof

trainedstaff

Wedon't



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

44© SCM World 2011


► Tlent cquisition nd development truly is prolem, with over 90%

of respondents sserting tht it is t lest “n importnt chllenge”

► Twenty two per cent of respondents clim tht tlent mngement hsecome more of chllenge over the pst three yers ginst mere14% who elieve it hs ecome esier

► Tlent development ppers to ecome n issue t middle mngementlevel, suggesting a challenge when basic skills are no longer sufcientut senior uthority hs not yet een gined

► With n overwhelming 54%, the dt illustrtes strong preferencefor professionl eperience within the industry s n eternl mrkerof tlent




T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

45© SCM World 2011

In his introductory remrks to this report, Pier Luigi Sigismondi refers to theundouted chnging role of supply chin mngement, continuing its journeyas a fully-edged driver of business value. Indeed a crisis like that witnessed inJpn this yer only serves to put this further into perspective. So with this inmind, it hs proved intriguing to nlyse some of the results grnered during

the course of this study.

Gaining Competitive Advantage through a Value-Driving Supply Chain

Indeed, the discussion surrounding supply chins s driver of vlue ws key part of this year’s research. Such a notion was given signicantly furthercredence, with 83% of survey respondents rmly believing that supply chainecellence cretes vlue through customer service, leding to customer loylty,while 70% also afrmed New Product Introduction (NPI) as a crucial means of delivering tht vlue. With this, we cn sfely conclude tht viewing supply chins foundtion of vlue cretion is no longer limited to those more innovtivecompnies nd tht, if your compny still only perceives the supply chin s

mens of reducing operting costs, then you re likely to fll ehind yourcompetitors.

Setting-Up Supply Chains for Growth across Emerging Economies

Evidence of further changing trends in supply chain relates to the ndings onglolistion. Trditionlly, emerging mrkets hve een seen s the mensof delivering low cost country sourcing. The emerging economies were wheremnufcturers would source from in order to sell to mture mrkets. However,the dt from this yer’s study revels tht this long-estlished picture is nolonger ccurte, with vst mjority of respondents seeing glolistion ndemerging economies s two-wy street: mrkets where you source from nd,

importntly, sell to s well. Indeed, over 80% of supply chin professionlsreported selling nd shipping to emerging mrkets, while pproimtely 38% infct sserted tht their glol supply chin strtegy is primrily oriented roundselling nd delivering to these regions.

Enhancing the Corporate Brand through Sustainability

Furthermore, when it comes to sustinility, it is widely ccepted now thtsustinility nd Corporte Socil Responsiility (CSR) hve ecome key reof competitiveness nd tht, in turn, the supply chin hs ssumed positionto enhance the corporate brand and deliver further value. The ndings duringthis study highlight the now cemented perception tht sustinility is corevlue driver, with 65% nd 46% identifying senior mngement nd customersrespectively s the vitl source of sustinility efforts. Wht ws n eercisein ticking oes under strict pressure from regultors nd governments is nown inititive led y senior mngement nd the ord, recognising the positiveimge it cretes for customers nd the susequent vlue this cn generte.

CONCLUSION aND RECOMMENDaTIONS



T h e


C h a i n

O f c e r R e p o r t 2 0 1 1

46© SCM World 2011

Developing Supply Chain Talent into Future Business Leaders

Finlly, s the supply chin function trnsforms from n opertionl tool toa bona de competitive weapon, the need for a revised skill set across the

supply chin workforce ecomes ever-more criticl. bord-level responsiilities,strtegic decision-mking nd new internl reltionships with other usinessunits symolise the role of the net-genertion supply chin leder nd theemerging crop of tlent must e properly equipped with these necessrycompetencies nd responsiilities. It is therefore unsurprising to oserve tht90% of supply chin eecutives see tlent cquisition nd development s tlest “n importnt chllenge”. Perhps dding further weight to the clim liesin the fct tht just under 40% of respondents elieve tlent mngement to emore of prolem t mid-mngement level, suggesting compnies strugglewhen basic skills are no longer sufcient, with more “General Manager” typeskills now required.

a recurring theme during the study hs een chnge. Tht is, chnge in the roleof supply chin; how it delivers vlue, how it serves new mrkets nd how theskill set is now evolving. Supply chin is now t the forefront of the usiness,serving customers nd delivering top line growth. If your supply chin is notredy to meet these new dynmics, then it is most prole tht your usinesswill fll short in the competitive gme.

CONCLUSION aND RECOMMENDaTIONS



About SCM World

About E2open

SCM World, RptureWorld compny, is the ledingglol institute for supply chin eecutives. Hosting dynmic nd interctive nnul progrmme of end-usernd cdemic-led weinrs & events for its memers,SCM World is fst ecoming the de-fcto enchmrk forforwrd-thinking supply chin leders nd their gloltems to sty current through cutting edge content.

Orgnistions from cross multiple industry verticlsuse SCM World to further enhnce supply chin lerningnd development, including the likes of HP, Nestle, Tyco,

RIM, xero, Nike, GloSmithKline, bter Helthcre,Emerson, Motorol, Levis, The Dow Chemicl Co, baSF,applied Mterils nd mny more.

E2open is leding provider of cloud-sed supplychin mngement solutions. The compny providessoftwre nd services tht enle visiility, collor-tion nd control cross lrge trding prtner networks.brnd owners nd glol mnufcturers with complesupply chins use the compny’s b2b integrtion ser-vices nd supply chin usiness process mngementsolutions to mintin optiml lignment of supply nddemnd for lower costs nd etter service.

E2open customers include The boeing Compny, Celes-tic, Cisco, Dell, Hitchi, IbM, LSI Corportion, Motoro-l, Pnsonic, Reserch In Motion, Segte Technology

Documents

CSCO Report 2011