The Economist, which steadfastly continues to call itself a newspaper rather than a magazine, recently ran a provocative - in the sense of provoking - column.  The October 1st Schumpeter opinion page (www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14540023) discussed elements of thriving on adversity.  It cited several cases of companies that havelearnt how to prosper in difficult times, and have even started up with transformational busniess concepts during recessions.

The column cited some positives from leaders that distinguish them from industry laggards, including ground-breaking product innovation, customer/product re-focus, and prior good management that husbanded resources - including cash - against a rainy day.  It regrettably went on to include using "muscle" to "squeeze" costs, a tactic that is short-sighted on a good day and destructive to effective high-trust business relationships in the end.

Curiously, several of the titans mentioned are among the global leaders in supply chain management (and supply chain relationships), e.g., Cisco, P&G, Coca-Cola, Nokia, IBM, PepsiCo, and the like.  Leveraging the creativity and power of intimate relationships with supply chain partners was not mentioned.

I am generally mad with admiration for The Economist for the quality of its writing, for the  substance of its content, and because it is one of the few "newspapers" that really understands about supply chain management - and assumes that its readers also do.  Schumpeter, with some excellent content and research, went only halfway on this topic, then missed the boat on what might be the most important element for success in tough times, the quality and caliber of business relationships in the supply chain.

What's your take?