McNeil, the respected Johnson & Johnson unit, has faced a product recall of stunning proportion over the past few weeks, with a wide range of liguid analgesics, notably Tylenol, involved. This raises supply chain issues at a couple of levels.
One is how to handle products in the hands of consumers. These, it should be obvious, can't be physically returned in a reverse logistics application at any reasonable level of cost or effort. Accordingly, refunds are being issued, with instructions to get rid of any unused product, whether unopened or partially used. Another is getting earlier shipments out of retail customers' stores and warehouses, where larger quantities might require physical movement. I'm confident that J&J's supply chain partners value the speed and candor with which the situation has been handled, and would have expected nothing less.
There may be another level of interest, though, and I'm not quite sure how to approach it. In supply chain education, we are fond of - in examining the linked components of integrated supply chains - distinguishing between the "old days" of a logistics perspective and a 21st-century view of supply chain management. In the former, we were focused on what happened between the boxes in the diagram - physical movement and handling. In the latter, we say we are vitally interested in what happens inside the boxes - how we plan and execute procurement or conversion (manufacturing), for example.
But, are we really? Do we - can we - have visibility and oversight when the preceding link in the supply chain is J&J? Should we? If the source were not a provider of the same scope and scale, would we insist on having that visibility?
Should we rely on the processes, controls, and track record of any manufacturer to detect and correct problems, and keep the entire supply chain out of trouble? Or, do we not challenge behemoths, and hope for the best?
What are the ramifications of these questions on the quality of our business relationships? Are the risks real? Are they offset by longer-term benefits?
What do you think?
It might appear that entirely too many young people in the U.S. have taken to heart the exhortation, "We don't need no education," from the Pink Floyd anthem, Another Brick In The Wall. A friend recently admitted to interrviewing three Princeton candidates from a well-known private school. Two were of Indian heritage and one was Iranian.
I won't wander into the swamp of comparative genetics, but will observe that environments in which learning and accomplishment are valued tend to produce scholars and achievers.
There may be good news in the world of logistics and supply chain managment, however. As DC Velocity recently reported, logistics centers (and communities that aspire to be) are investing in relevant and focused workforce development (which is a code word for education).
Here in beautiful downtown Ohio, a coordinated and multi-tiered initiative is underway. It involves universities, colleges, community colleges, high schools, and private sector companies in developing and delivering logistics education to students at all levels, as well as to adult learners (for either retraining or skills maintenance). The objectives are self-serving - supporting local business development and economic growth. And, it's working.
So, what are you doing to develop and enhance your workforce's knowledge base? Could they be doing a better job with more training? As important - maybe even more so - what are your supply chain partners doing in this arena? Would improved skills help build a more capable and effective - and more competitive - end-to-end supply chain?