Overly Sophistimicated

Posted on February 3, 2016 by Jeff Harrop

There are many methods for predicting the future. For example, you can read horoscopes, tea leaves, tarot cards or crystal balls. Collectively, these are known as ‘nutty methods’. Or you can put well researched facts into sophisticated computer models, more commonly known as ‘a complete waste of time.’ – Scott Adams

If you have your driver’s license, you can get into virtually any automobile in any country in the world and drive it. Not only that, but you can drive any car made between 1908 and today.

You want to make a left turn? Rotate the steering wheel counter-clockwise.
Right turn? Clockwise.
Speed up? Press your foot down on the accelerator pedal.
Slow down? Remove your foot from the accelerator pedal.
Come to a stop? Press your foot down on the brake pedal.

Think all of the advances in automotive technology – from the Ford Model T in 1908 to the Tesla Model S in 2016… Over 100 years and countless technological leaps, yet the ‘user interface’ has remained the same (and universally applied) for all this time.

This is what makes the skill of driving easy to learn and transferable from one car to the next. And all of the complexities of road design, elevation and traffic can be solved by making the decisions on the part of the driver in any scenario very simple: speed up, slow down, stop or turn. Heck, even the lunar rover used the same user interface to deal with extraterrestrial terrain!

Not only that, but because the interface is simple and control on the part of the driver is absolute, there is built in accountability for the result. If the car is travelling faster than the speed limit, it’s because the driver made it so, manufacturing defects (most often caused by ‘over sophistimication’) notwithstanding.

While supply chain forecasting software hasn’t been around since the early 1900s, it’s been around long enough that it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect some level of uniformity in the user interface by now.

Yet, while a semi-experienced driver can walk up to an Avis counter and be off cruising in a car model that they’ve never driven before within minutes, it would take weeks (if not months) for an experienced forecaster to become proficient in a software tool that they’ve never used before.

The difference, in my opinion, is that the automobile was designed from the start to be used by any person. Advanced degrees in chemistry, physics and engineering are needed to build a car, not operate it.

While no one expects that ‘any person’ can be a professional forecaster, it should not be necessary (nor is it economically feasible) for every person accountable for predicting demand to have a PhD in statistics to understand how to operate a forecasting system. The less understood the methods are for calculating forecasts, the easier it is for people on the front line of the process to avail themselves of accountability for the results. Police hand out speeding tickets to drivers, not passengers.

Obviously, not all cars are alike. They compete on features, gadgets, styling, horsepower and price. But whatever new gizmos car manufacturers dream up, they can’t escape the simple, intuitive user interface that has been in place for over 100 years.

While I’m sure it’s an enriching intellectual exercise to fill pages with clouds of Greek symbols in the quest to develop the most sophisticated forecasting algorithm, wouldn’t it be nice if managing a demand forecast was as easy as driving a car?

Bad Habits, Part 2

Posted on December 2, 2015 by Jeff Harrop

Managing on time performance (inbound or outbound) is a struggle for every retailer. Whenever there’s a delivery failure, somebody asks the inevitable question: “How do we prevent this from happening again?”

Sometimes the cause is known to be out of your control – a freak snowstorm leaves trucks stranded or a temporary congestion issue at a facility. For these types of unpredictable reasons, it’s simply not possible to achieve 100% on-time delivery all the time.

But what about cases where a supplying location is chronically at 80%? What if it’s dozens of locations with this problem (which is not uncommon in retail)?

What we’ve seen is that, faced with this problem, many retailers have developed the bad habit of arbitrarily increasing their planning lead times. In many cases, they will even develop processes that will analyze the demonstrated order-to-delivery times on historical orders and transfers, then automatically update the planning systems with increased lead times in an effort to boost on time delivery performance.

What often happens is that on time performance does improve (for a time), which tends to validate the process. Then results start to slip again, triggering another wave of analysis or an increase in the frequency of the automated logic to ‘stay on top of things’.

The problem with this approach is that it assumes two things:

That lead times are something that ‘just happens’ over which nobody has any control.
Where on time delivery performance is failing, it must be because people aren’t being given enough time to do perform their tasks.

The actual order-to-delivery cycle time in a supply chain is the result of processes. These processes must be routine, repeatable and, most importantly, designed to achieve the goal you’re measuring them against.

The routine and repeatable part likely isn’t the issue in most cases. The amount of time it takes to pick an order or drive a fixed distance doesn’t have a lot of variation (especially when lead times are rounded to the nearest day). Once you know what those standard times are, there really shouldn’t be any need to change them very frequently (unless the processes that generate the results change significantly).

Yes, there are rare, infrequent events that will cause lateness, but that should account for an on-time performance measure in the 80s.

More likely than not, the culprit is that the processes are not designed to achieve on time performance. For example, if there is a prioritization scheme in place that schedules picking and shipping based on any other criteria than the due date, the process is not designed for on time performance.

For example, it’s commonplace for retailer DCs to prioritize promotional shipments to stores with a shipping date of next week ahead of regular shipments that are due to be shipped today.

Suppliers may or may not be prioritizing shipments based on the size of the customer or the negotiated price.

In any of those cases the issue is that the ship date is not being respected, so no amount of additional lead time will solve the problem long term. All an increased lead time will do is lengthen the amount of time between the order date and the scheduled ship date, thereby decreasing the ability to adapt and react to changes. Not to mention the increase in safety stock requirements to cover a longer frozen window.

Like anything in the supply chain, the key to solving chronic issues with on time delivery is to find the root cause of the problem and take the necessary steps to address them. To the extent that the processes are within your organization’s control, that can be relatively straightforward (assuming the intestinal fortitude exists to prioritize all shipments based on a due date, promotional or not).

If the issue is with a supplier, there needs to be a common understanding of how their underlying processes work and what conditions are necessary to deliver consistently on time. This goes beyond using a scorecard to try to ‘shame them into submission’. By adopting Flowcasting and sharing a time-phased schedule of their requirements, retailers can provide very valuable preparatory information to their suppliers that will give them visibility to shipping requirements weeks and months before the purchase order is ever cut.

Don’t fall into the bad habit of setting your lead times based on a data mining exercise. Look at them with a critical eye, identify where chronic failures are occurring and attack the root cause.

Bad Habits, Part 1

Posted on October 7, 2015 by Jeff Harrop

Bad habits are like a comfortable bed, easy to get into, but hard to get out of – Anonymous

Friedrich Nietsche said “Most bad habits are tools to help us through life.”

This is especially true in the world of retail supply chain planning. When retailers embark upon implementing time-phased planning, it is tempting – from a change management standpoint – to tell people “this isn’t much different than what we do today” or “we’re essentially doing the same thing in a different way”.

While this is partially true at the 10,000 foot level, the things that are different are fundamentally different.

This month, we’ll explore a bad planning habit that is particularly insidious, because it is often treated as best practice in a non-Flowcasting world: Using the forecast as a “joystick” to control product flow.

There comes a time in every retailer’s life when product must flow further in advance of customer demand than desired, such as for capacity blowing seasonal peaks, planogram resets or promotional display setups.

In a reorder point world, there is little means to plan these types of things in advance. Replenishment rules such as safety stock apply “right now”, making it exceedingly difficult to do a lot of advance preparation in the system. This leaves 2 options:

Plan all of your safety stock updates in advance and use an Outlook reminder to update the values at just the right time to trigger orders when you want them to arrive.
Spend hours creating manual orders/transfer requests with the future ship dates you want – and pray that things don’t change a lot in the meantime that will require you to change those dates/quantities as it gets closer to execution time.

Neither very good options to be sure.

But wait!

There is a third option. By putting an artificial spike in the forecast at around the time you want product to arrive at various locations, you can ‘trick’ the system into flowing product when you want, but also take advantage of changing inventory levels right up until the lead time fence, thereby letting the ordering happen automatically.

To some extent, this makes sense in a reorder point world. Often, it can be the only efficient and automatic way to control flow. And it doesn’t do too much damage, because the forecast really only exists to trigger an order for an item at a location.

So what would happen if this approach was applied in a Flowcasting world? Not much: just unstable plans, incorrect capacity and financial projections and general chaos within operations and the vendor community.

That’s because, with Flowcasting, the sales forecast doesn’t merely drive ordering for an item at a location. It drives replenishment across all locations in the supply chain simultaneously. It drives capacity planning for the DCs and transportation department. It drives labour planning at the stores. It drives revenue, purchasing and inventory projections within the merchandising teams and finance.

Simply put, the forecast must always be representative of how much you expect to sell, where you expect to sell it and when you expect to sell it. And with the visibility afforded by a reasonable sales forecast, many options become available for controlling the flow of goods as necessary.

In other words, once you make the leap to Flowcasting, the bad habit of using your forecast as a ‘joystick’ to control replenishment is no longer a ‘tool that helps you through life’ – rather, it is one of the quickest possible ways to make your life a living hell.

The Biggest Mistake You’ll Ever Make

Posted on August 5, 2015 by Jeff Harrop

You must learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t possibly make them all yourself. – Sam Levenson

‘How does it work today?’

It’s the first question any self respecting project leader or consultant asks on day 1 of a new initiative. It’s critically important to know the ‘state of the nation’ before you embark on any sort of effort to make the changes needed to improve results.

After asking this question, you set about the task of learning the current practices and procedures and documenting everything to a fairly low level of detail (along with the most common variations on those practices that you’ll almost always find in companies of any size).

In most retail organizations, you’ll hear versions of the following:

For non-promoted periods, our purchasing is mostly automated with a short lead time, but we buy promotions manually with a longer lead time from the vendor.
Our stores ‘pull’ product in non-promoted weeks, but for big events like promotions and shelf resets, we ‘push’ the product out to them .
The system will recommend orders, but our analysts review all of the recommendations beforehand and have the ability to cancel or modify them before they go out to the suppliers.

After a few weeks, you’ve become a pseudo expert on the current state landscape and have everything documented. Now it’s time to turn this retailer from a reactionary firefighter into a consumer driven enterprise.

And that’s when you make the biggest mistake of your life.

After summarizing all the current state practices with bullet points, you save the document with the title ‘Future State Requirements’. You don’t know it at the time, but you’ve just signed yourself up for years of hell with no light at the end of the tunnel. If it’s any consolation, you’re definitely not alone.

Common practices, whether within your organization or throughout your industry as a whole, represent ‘the way everybody does it’. This does not equate with ‘that’s the only way it can be done.’

At the time, it seems like the path of least resistance: We’ll try to do this in such a way that we don’t disrupt people’s current way of doing things, so they will more easily adopt the future state. But if you’re moving from a ‘reactive firefighting’ current state to a ‘demand driven’ future state, then disruption cannot be avoided. You might as well embrace that fact early, rather than spending years of time and millions of over-budget dollars trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

So how could such a catastrophe be avoided? All you really need to do is dig a little deeper on the ‘common practices’. The practices themselves shouldn’t be considered requirements, but their reason for existing should. For example, look at the three ‘common practices’ I mentioned above:

‘For non-promoted periods, our purchasing is mostly automated with a short lead time, but we buy promotions manually with a longer lead time from the vendor.’

Why does this practice exist? Because, generally speaking, the sales volume (and corresponding order volume from the vendor) for a promoted week can be several times higher than a non-promoted week.

So what’s the actual requirement? The vendor needs visibility to these requirements further in advance to make sure they’re prepared for it. Cutting promotional orders in advance is the currently accepted way of skinning that cat – but it’s by no means the only way.

‘Our stores ‘pull’ product in non-promoted weeks, but for big events like promotions and shelf resets, we ‘push’ the product out to them.’

Why does this practice exist? More often than not, it’s because the current processes and systems currently in place treat ‘regular planning’ and ‘promotion planning’ as distinct and unrelated processes.

What’s the actual requirement? To plan all consumer demand in an integrated fashion, such that the forecast for any item at any location represents what we truly think will sell, inclusive of all known future events such as promotions.

‘The system will recommend orders, but our analysts review all of the recommendations beforehand and have the ability to cancel or modify them before they go out to the suppliers.’

Why does this practice exist? Usually, it’s because the final order out to the supplier is the only ‘control lever’ available to the analyst.

What’s the actual requirement? To be able to exert control over the plan (items, locations, dates and quantities) that leads to order creation, allowing the actual ordering step to be an administrative ‘non event’.

So, once you’ve identified the true requirements, what’s next? A lot of hard work. Just from the 3 examples above, you can see that there are several change management challenges ahead. But at least it’s hard work that you can see and plan for ahead of time.

Woe to those who choose what they think is the easy path at the outset only to suffer the death of a thousand surprises after it’s far too late.

In Praise of Non-Collaboration

Posted on June 3, 2015 by Jeff Harrop

According to dictionary.com, the definition of ‘collaborate’ is: ‘to work, one with another; cooperate’.

Recently, I received an email from Supply Chain Digest asking me to participate in a survey called ‘The State of Retail and Vendor Supply Chain Relations 2015’ – perhaps you received it too. (As a consultant, I never participate in these surveys as I feel it could taint the results, but I’m always interested in what they’re trying to find out).

The Research Summary reads: ‘What is the state of retailer and vendor/supplier relations today? Is it getting better and more collaborative – or heading the other way?’ The implication is crystal clear: More Collaboration = Better.

It seems foolish to argue against that. But that’s just what I’m going to do.

Over the years, supply chain collaboration initiatives were conceived with the notion that ‘two heads are better than one’, especially when there’s uncertainty afoot that could cause havoc in the supply chain, such as for promotions or product launches.

And because trading partners’ planning processes weren’t integrated with a common set of numbers, collaboration was seen as the way to bridge the gap (i.e. ‘we have two sets of plans that are misaligned, so let’s talk our way through it until we agree’). But to what extent is collaboration necessary (or even advisable) when trading partners are fully integrated?

Collaboration is work. Integration is effortless.

All that said, I would tend to agree with the ‘two heads’ argument, so long as all available information is shared between the ‘heads’ This is rarely the case, however, and it’s most often the result of inability to share, rather than unwillingness to share.

Consider a common scenario whereby a retailer and a supplier collaborate on a sales forecast. In order for the demand picture to be complete, the following information must be known and disclosed during the collaboration:

Pricing and promotion strategy for the supplier’s products at the retailer’s stores
Pricing and promotion strategy for the supplier’s competitors’ products at the retailer’s stores
Pricing and promotion strategy for the supplier’s products at the retailer’s competitors’ stores

Point 1 is generally already known by both parties. Points 2 & 3 are at best, unethical (and at worst illegal) for either party to share with the other.

It’s sort of like having two people collaborate on what bet to place on a 5 card poker hand. Each person can only see 3 of the 5 cards with one common known card between them and they aren’t allowed to discuss the cards they can see with their collaboration partner. But the strength of the hand is determined by all 5 cards together.

As a general rule, the retailer faces the customer and they know the breadth of their offerings across all of their competing and complementary products. They may not know exactly what their competitors are doing that could impact their sales, but they pretty much know everything else. Given that the supplier is ethically prevented from providing the one missing piece of information, what value do they add to the collaboration process?

Another example is collaboration on network efficiency to alleviate capacity issues at retail DCs during peak periods. The problem here is that a capacity constraint occurs as a result of a number of straws breaking the camel’s back. Only the retailer has the visibility to all of the straws. How can a collaboration with any single supplier (straw) result in a plan to smooth out the flow for the entire building?

Note that I’m not suggesting that retailers and suppliers shouldn’t be talking to each other when circumstances require it. In the capacity constraint example, the retailer has all the information they need to detect the constraint and figure out the best way to circumvent it. At that point, discussions may need to happen with some suppliers to pull shipments ahead or maybe bypass nodes in the supply chain, but at that point, they’re really just working out execution details rather than ‘collaborating on the plan’.

When you think about it, the supply chain is really not a chain at all – it’s a web. With the exception of private label goods or exclusive supply arrangements, the notion that a retailer and a supplier can ‘act as a single entity in service to the consumer’ is not as easy as it sounds – even with advanced planning processes like Flowcasting. Each retailer offers products from many competing suppliers and each supplier provides their products to many competing retailers.

So if the idea of collaboration is somewhat flawed, then what is better?

Basically, retailers need to get their houses in order and build all of their planning activities around sales at the store shelf (using Flowcasting, of course), incorporating all information they know into the plan – inventories, shipping/receiving schedules, case pack sizes and the like.

Once constructed by the retailer, these plans can be shared directly with suppliers, allowing them to ‘read the retailer’s mind’ without having to second guess or do a lot of ‘collaborating’ back and forth. Discussions between business partners only need to occur when either party foresees difficulty in executing the plan.

Why collaborate when you can integrate?

The Inkblot

Posted on April 1, 2015 by Jeff Harrop

Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. – Karl Marx (1818-1883)

What do you see when you look at the image above? A demon skull? An old woman with wild hair? A happening dance party?

That’s the great thing about the Rorschach inkblot test – there’s no wrong answer. Any and all interpretations of an inkblot are “right”.

In many ways, a lot of what have been considered to be key supply chain advances are often treated in the same way. Over the years, I’ve met many people at conferences and seminars who proudly state that “we’re doing CPFR” or “we’re doing S&OP”. After short conversations with these folks, it seems that the definition of “CPFR” and “S&OP” has become somewhat diluted. It seems that any time someone shares a spreadsheet with someone outside their organization, it’s “CPFR” and whenever two people from different areas of an organization are in the same room, it’s “an S&OP meeting”.

Part of this is because these terms have successfully pervaded the supply chain lexicon and are well known. People are either jumping aboard a bandwagon or perhaps unintentionally using the terms as shorthand for something they were never meant to convey.

However, to a certain extent, these concepts sort of had it coming. While the early proponents and practitioners of these concepts laid out some guidelines and principles, there was still a lot of grey area as to how they could be applied to the actual day-to-day operation of a business by the people who actually run the day-to-day business (hint: those people do not occupy the executive suites).

Whenever I speak about Flowcasting, there are inevitably people who come up to me afterward to tell me “we’re basically doing Flowcasting in our company right now!”

I hate that word “basically”.

However, my interest is always piqued when I hear this, so I press for more information. Here are some “flavours” that I’ve heard over the years:

– “We have 52 week time-phased plans at our stores feeding back to the DCs but only for a selection of items.”

– “We do time-phased planning for all of our items in all of our stores and DCs, but they aren’t connected to each other.”

– “We have plans connecting all stores to all DCs for all items, but only over the next 13 weeks.”

– “We use multi-echelon planning for our regular volume, but we have a separate push process for promotions.”

I don’t know what the names of each of these variations might be, but the stuff after the “but” means that it is definitely not Flowcasting.

Flowcasting only works as a sum of all its parts and you can’t pick and choose criteria from a menu and label it “basically Flowcasting”, any more than you can say that any object with 4 wheels on it is “basically a Ferrari”.

So how can you know if you’re truly “doing Flowcasting” without having to read a 300 page book on the subject? Fortunately, the Flowcasting process is detailed and specific, without much room for a lot of “eye of the beholder” stuff.

If all of the following are true, I think you can reasonably claim that you are part of a Flowcasting organization:

– If someone chooses any item in your assortment, any location in your network and any day in the upcoming year, you can enter these 3 pieces of information into a system and it will tell you what your sales, receipts and on hand balance will be for that item in that location on that day.

– For any item at any selling location, you can see a 52 week sales forecast that incorporates all known future demand influences, including seasons and promotions.

– Except in rare cases, all orders and stock transfers are administrative “non events” that trigger automatically with a single lead-time and without any human intervention. Yes, that goes for promo orders too.

– You can view any location in your network and you can see inbound, outbound and inventoried cubic feet, weight, pallet positions, picks, receipts and labour hours for any day in the next 52 weeks – and you can drill down to see precisely which items are driving those high level metrics on that day.

– You can automatically create a financial plan for any item, category or across the entire business for the next 52 weeks, including sales, purchases and inventory investments. Then you can update the forecast for one item and the financial plan at any level automatically refreshes.

You may not be able to get there overnight, but once you’re there, you are Flowcasting. Basically.

Okay, rant over.

Cross Purposes

Posted on February 4, 2015 by Jeff Harrop

A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece. – Ludwig Erhard (1897 – 1977)

Last week, I had the chance to catch up with a good friend and colleague of many years. His name is Ian and he is the VP of Supply Chain at a mid-sized retailer (with vast prior experience at a large retailer).

After a couple of beers, he asked me point blank: “Forecasting and Replenishment. One job or two?”

Without hesitation, I responded “Two!” Then I proceeded to describe the differences in skill sets, business relationships and aptitudes between a Demand Planner and a Supply Planner.

“Okay”, he said. “Who does the Demand Planning group report to?”

That’s a very interesting question indeed.

The goal of the demand planning process is to create a sales forecast that is as accurate and unbiased as possible. In retail, the process of coming up with a forecast is typically a “joint effort” between the Category Manager and the Supply Chain Planner.

The Category Manager is measured primarily on sales. Therefore he/she has a tendency to make optimistic projections and bias the forecast upward, knowing that a higher forecast will buy more inventory, thereby (theoretically) reducing the likelihood of lost sales.

The Supply Chain Planner is measured primarily on inventory turns. Therefore he/she has a tendency to “keep the forecast lean” to avoid carryover inventory after a promotion or selling season.

Therein lies the rub. If you give control of the forecasting process to the Merchandising group, Supply Chain feels like you’re “putting the fox in charge of the henhouse”. If the forecasting process falls under Supply Chain, Merchandising feels like they have no control over one of the key inputs that drive their businesses.

So should the Demand Planning function reside within Merchandising or Supply Chain?

Neither.

Think about it. Neither group can be faulted for exhibiting behaviour on which they are rewarded. The problem is that they have competing objectives and the biases on either side can have a direct negative impact on the P&L.

That’s why the Demand Planning function needs to report to someone who has accountability for the entire P&L – either the CEO or, more practically, the CFO.

Remember the goal for the sales forecast: As accurate and as unbiased as possible. By having Demand Planners report into Finance, they can be effective mediators between the competing groups and would have “a seat at the table” when matters relating to the sales forecast are discussed (promotions, product launches, safety stock policies, etc.)

Their job would be to chair S&OP meetings with their Merchandising and Supply Chain counterparts and hear both sides of the story with an objective ear. Without either group having the direct ability to impose their biases on the forecast, they must instead make a convincing case to the Demand Planner to support their view.

As a consequence, the current “blurred lines” of accountability are made clear once and for all:

Merchandising: Stimulate demand and be accountable for sales and gross margin.

Demand Planning: Forecast demand and be accountable for forecast quality.

Supply Chain: Optimize supply and be accountable for inventory turns and availability.

Collaboration Kool-Aid

Posted on January 7, 2015 by Mike Doherty

Theories come easy. Robust models that work in the real world do not. – Mark Payne, Fahrenheit 212

Recently I was asked by a client to describe myself in one sentence. After pondering it, the client smiled when I answered:

“I’m equal part genius, equal part buffoon”.

And I really believe that – at least the buffoon part.

I’ve never been able to dance very well with conventional wisdom. For some unknown reason, I can’t seem to follow along. I’ve always had a healthy dose of skepticism for conventional wisdom – especially in supply chain planning.

Recently a client of mine challenged me on the conventional wisdom regarding demand planning collaboration. First off, a bit of background about my client – let’s call him Ken.

When it comes to demand planning collaboration, Ken has a significant advantage over me.

He has no experience.

Yup, he’s never designed or implemented anything regarding retail supply chain planning (Flowcasting or otherwise).

However, he does know retail. Cold. Ken is a smart dude and a quick study. He understands Flowcasting and its potential.

When we were talking and designing the demand planning process that will drive Flowcasting, the topic of collaboration came up. I did what any consultant would do and immediately offered Ken a large glass of Collaboration Kool-Aid.

After all, the conventional wisdom from every planning expert is that when it comes to demand planning, collaboration is king. Luckily Ken’s got a little buffoon in him too and he started to ask some pretty specific questions – questions that I’ve been pondering as well.

He pointed out that in a Flowcasting world, there is only one forecast – a time-phased forecast of sales to the consumer, by item, by store.

By his thinking a retail demand planner would be accountable for this forecast. And, of course, Flowcasting technology would generate the math forecast for possibly millions of store/item combinations. By his logic no collaboration would be necessary. I agreed.

But what about promotions and new items, I argued? Surely collaboration would be needed there and would improve the forecast. After all, it’s conventional wisdom. Then he floored me with the following, regarding demand planning collaboration:

Outline the specific steps each person would perform in the demand planning process
Prove that more people improve the process enough to warrant the extra effort

It was a difficult exercise and we both struggled to document, on a white board, actual steps different people would take that we believed would actually improve the process and resulting forecast.

After all, in a Flowcasting world, we are forecasting consumer demand. When it comes to promotions, a demand planner would use history to help predict demand. But, argued Ken, so would anyone else involved in the process (like a category leader or even a supplier).

And would their actual forecast really differ significantly from that of the demand planner, if they were unbiased and just trying to predict the sales? And, would their steps to arrive at the forecast be much different? If so, what would the steps be? I struggled. Started to babble. Then started to sweat. I couldn’t really come up with any significant difference. And you know what they say…”if 2 people in business always agree, then one of them is not necessary”.

After more debate, we ended up in the same place even for new items.

Our conclusion was completely the opposite of conventional wisdom – A single demand planner, accountable for the forecast, would produce as good a forecast as a team collaborating on it, with considerably less effort and a much simpler process.

If the demand planner wanted advice or input on a specific forecast, they would ask (possibly a category manager). But, we both agreed – that would happen very rarely. In terms of proving that having people collaborate on the forecast produces a better consumer demand forecast, there really is no documented proof. Only conventional wisdom, supported by an army of Kool-Aid drinkers.

Now I know what my long time colleagues and fellow self-anointed supply chain experts are thinking – wow, Ken really is a buffoon.

By the way, I happen to agree with him.

Guess that makes me a buffoon as well.

Told you so.

Supply Chain Sherpas

Posted on December 3, 2014 by Jeff Harrop

Climbing would be a great, truly wonderful thing if it weren’t for all that damn climbing. – John Ohrenschall

The people in our biz generally fall into one of two broad categories: Supply Chain Strategy Consultants and System Integrators.

To oversimply things just a bit, Supply Chain Strategy Consultants work with VPs to make sure the folks at the top “see the big picture”. They generally operate at around 10,000 feet at the lowest and aren’t directly involved in any detailed or technical stuff.

System Integrators (as their name would suggest) ensure that new technology and legacy systems will talk to each other. Their job is not “thought leadership” per se, but rather understanding their clients’ requirements and getting through the detailed development and implementation tasks.

So for a supply chain transformation project to be successful, conventional wisdom would suggest that you would need a Supply Chain Strategy Consultant to help with the big picture stuff and a System Integrator to handle the details.

If you were to take each of these folks with you on an Everest expedition and found yourself on a plateau trying to figure out your next move, here’s the advice you would get:

Strategy Consultant (over the radio from a safe warm lodge): “The summit is the goal. Make sure your pace is not too fast or too slow and let me know if you need me to send up more oxygen tanks.”

System Integrator: “I’ve surveyed the plateau and we can go straight up to the next plateau, skirt around to the south face for a bit to find an easier climb upward or pitch camp for the night.”

They have both provided valuable input, but what exactly should you do next?

This is where the Sherpa comes in. Conventional wisdom is defied by the fact that the Sherpa is not a “strategy guy” nor is he a “details guy”. He’s both.

Every trip up the mountain is unique, but the Sherpa knows exactly where the summit is and that there are several paths to it. Having been up the mountain many times, the Sherpa is continually considering weather conditions, experiences from previous climbs and the strengths and weaknesses of the folks in this particular expedition every step of the way.

Put him anywhere on the mountain and he not only knows multiple paths to the summit, but he also knows which is the “right” next move for a particular expedition on a particular day.

The Sherpa is a humble servant who not only contributes his knowledge and experience to the climb, but is also right there with you testing every foothold and weathering every snow squall. It is not “his climb”, but “the team’s climb”. (Everybody knows who Sir Edmund Hillary is, but – without going to Google – can you name his Sherpa? If you knew it right away, kudos! If you give up, click here. As for me, I needed Google).

A supply chain transformation project is a lot like scaling Everest. The feat is monumental, the conditions change constantly and you’ll need a team with a diverse skill set to make it to the top.

While it’s certainly possible to make it to the top without a Sherpa, I wouldn’t recommend it.

The Retailer’s Path to Flowcasting

Posted on October 1, 2014 by Jeff Harrop

Nobody trips over mountains. It is the small pebble that causes you to stumble. Pass all the pebbles in your path and you will find that you have crossed the mountain. – Unknown

Flowcasting is quite a destination.

Every item in every store has a sales forecast. The rest of the supply chain planning problem utilizes a single set of numbers – from the point of sale to the point of manufacture – based on the expected sales at the shelf.

Future inventory needs, equipment, manpower and financial projections are simple, intuitive expressions of the plan that gets created by item/store and in units. It’s like having data warehouse level of detail, except all the dates are in the future instead of the past.

At that final destination, the line drawn between retailers and suppliers becomes a porous membrane – the retailer becomes the selling arm of the supplier and the supplier becomes the manufacturing arm of the retailer. A common plan between them is used to detect trouble and opportunities in advance and to simulate various plans of attack to reshape the future before it arrives.

So how do we get there from where we are now?

For retailers, there’s a 4 step path to follow.

Step 1: Integrate Replenishment

All of the capabilities enabled by Flowcasting start with the most elemental level of planning: discrete items in specific stores by unit by day. The first step is to build a planning process within the retail organization that will create this primary information.

Even though this is the first step, it is by far the most involved for a retailer, as it often involves challenging many internal processes and relationships that have been used for decades.

However, it also delivers enormous benefits to a retailer in terms of improving on shelf availability and inventory productivity.

When the step of integrating replenishment is complete, the following things are true:

– Sales forecasts and replenishment plans exist and are recalculated daily for every item in every store – including the slowest of the slow sellers
– The individual item/store replenishment plans are used to calculate replenishment needs for all DCs and vendors upstream with no additional forecasting beyond the sales forecasts that drive item/store replenishment.
– There is tight collaboration between Supply Chain and Merchandising/Operations when promotions, line transitions and store network changes are being planned. The output of these collaborations are expected impacts on future sales by item/store/week, which are reflected in the operational item/store replenishment plans and shared throughout the supply chain. If available, planogram data is used in the plans.
– Replenishment schedules (with planned ship dates) are shared with all suppliers for a minimum horizon of 6 months in weekly buckets with at least a weekly update frequency.
– All planned orders are released for execution with a single commit time – including orders for promotions and pipeline fills.

Step 2: Integrate Operations

Once projections of volume in units exist at and among all items in all locations, they can be expressed in other units of measure and aggregated to estimate the usage of non-inventory resources in the supply chain:

– Inbound volumes by location in cube, weight and number of receipts.
– Outbound volumes by location in cube, weight or picks.
– Storage requirements by location in cube or storage locations.
– Lane volumes between locations in cube, weight or pallets.
– Labour requirements by location by area for shipping, put-away and receiving (including the stores).

When the step of integrating operations is complete, the following things are true:

-The Distribution and Transportation departments review the projections (translated into their language) weekly and identify exceptions when resources are expected to be over or under utilized.
– Plan their execution based solely on the due dates for every shipment or receipt.
– Exceptions are resolved by either:
- – Reallocating resources or pre-planning additional capacity long before the product starts to move
- – Collaborating with the Supply Chain Planning and/or Merchandising groups to change the plans for promotions or new product launches or co-ordinate the bypassing of nodes during high volume weeks (e.g. vendor direct-to-store in certain regions during peak weeks).

Step 3: Retail Sales & Operations Planning

After Steps 1 and 2 are complete, the building blocks are in place for Sales & Operations Planning (S&OP) within the retail enterprise. S&OP has been the norm in manufacturing for decades, so best practices have been well documented and can easily be adapted to a retailer with the first two building blocks in place.

When a retailer has successfully adopted S&OP, the following things are true:

– Meetings are held monthly where all of the numbers developed during the first two steps are dollarized and compared to the annual business plan. The meeting is chaired by the CEO and there are seats at the table for the Merchandising, Supply Chain and Finance VPs. Attendance is not optional. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and debate prior period results, future period projections and comparisons to the business plan.
– Gaps between the operational plans and the business plan (as well as strategies to close them) are cascaded downward throughout the organization to develop and implement changes to the operational plans. As the plans filter to the lower levels, these teams are also having their own “mini S&OP” meetings to discuss the same topics at a lower level of granularity.
– The operational plans (set by item/location/day in units) is directly tied to the retailer’s business plan.

Step 4: Joint Business Planning

With the first 3 steps complete, the retailer has “all of their ducks in a row” and is now in a position to bring their key trading partners into the fold. Unlike collaboration strategies of the past where retailers and suppliers try to compare and reconcile their independently created plans, we now have the ability to create a single plan which covers all activities the retailer and supplier perform together in order to get product into a customer’s hands.

When a retailer is successfully conducting JBP, the following things are true:

– S&OP style meetings are conducted at various levels of the organization with representation from key suppliers
– The retailer and all suppliers are using a single set of numbers in a common system for all of their planning activities. As a key trading partner sharing extremely valuable information, the supplier automatically removes the retailer’s planned shipments in their available to promise calculation – inventory for the retailer is protected.
– The competition is very worried.