CSCMP's game-changing CEO Rick Blasgen really nailed it in his latest Direct Connection segment in the Q2 issue of Supply Chain Quarterly (www.supplychainquarterly.com). The general point emphasized the value of face-to-face human-level communications in an age of instantaneous electronic communication via numerous media.
Even the Millennial Generation, btw, recognizes this value, despite its fondness for electronic access to all manner of information (and entertainment). My deep suspicion is that way too many people of all ages like to hide behind the impersonal facade of email, texting, tweeting, twittering, flittering - anything that buffers them from interactive personal contact. But, that reflects a personality disorder rather than a generational "preference."
Rick went on to promote the idea that communications leads to collaboration, which can be transported from individual application to organizational relationships. I take heart - when our profession's leaders get the picture this clearly, there's hope that the profession itself will follow.
Things get tricky at this point. Organizational collaboration can't really be - as in the George Gershwin song from Porgy and Bess - "a sometime thing," done when it's convenient for one supply chain partner or another. It needs to be part of day-to-day, and everyday, transaction execution within business relationships.
Now, the hard part. Collaboration doesn't just happen; relationships don't blossom just because they're planted and watered occasionally. All this is part of conscious investment of time and resources in creating the right kind of relationships with the right kind of partners, and all with a business purpose.
The investment, consuming as it may be, is where the big payoff in supply chain management is, though. It transcends momentary gains and losses when designed to deliver sustainable end-to-end marketplace advantage. And, the wunderkind at the end of the table who's texting while you're talking is part of that set of organized relationships.
Stadia emptied, vuvuzelas silenced, the Netherlands team has four years to contemplate what might have been in their resurgent prominence in the world of World Cup soccer. FIFA has a shorter time to assess the salutory effects of public hanging for sight-challenged and judgement-impaired referees. In the meantime, we'll don our colors and pull for Ajax, the pride of Amsterdam.
Back in the real world, the good news is that our universe of supply chain management is making headlines. That's also the bad news. USA Today's July 8 Money section carried a top-of-the-fold feature on shipping bottlenecks and their negative impacts on cost and timeliness. Our friend Rosalyn Wilson was cited (but CSCMP's production of her annual State of Logistics study was not mentioned - another rant for another day).
The problem was blamed on recession-driven capacity cutbacks in air cargo, ocean shipments, and truck transport. Adding container shortages to the mix makes marine transport the most severe manifestation of the problem, with shipping volumes increasing while Chinese container manufacturing has been seriously curtailed.
But, some of the damage was self-inflicted, and some continued difficulty is a matter of choice - an investment in short-term pain in exchange for a payoff in longer-term financial pleasure. Carriers (of all types) embraced sharp price cuts in order to keep operating - even at a loss - when times got tough. Many shippers took advantage of a perceived desperation, and turned the screws even tighter.
Now, the carriers want to get well - and fast. The USA Today feature reports a 150% increase in transportation costs (following the historic decline of 2009). Significant additional increases lie ahead, with re-activated capacity lagging demand. Some observers maintain that the ocean carriers' recent practice of "slow steaming" is a faux green maneuver to mask a cynical manipulation that reduces effective capacity - and creates unholy pressures for further upward price movement.
Despite the fine words and high concepts coming from many players in the global supply chain community, this scenario reflects a sobering reality about talking the talk versus walking the walk.
How often must we repeat these cycles of adversarial win/lose (and lose/lose) industry-wide confrontation? At some point, the strategists among us will learn to think, like Bobby Fischer, four or five moves ahead and build long-term business relationships. Real relationships will insulate genuine partners from the debilitating skirmishes that perpetuate the paradigm of creating immediate transactional focus, short-term one-sided gains, and long-term supply chain underperformance.
We know better; now we've got to do better. But, doing better requires that everybody - shippers, carriers, service providers - gets in the game. And plays to win-win.
The US Department of Transportation's Secretary, Ray LaHood, announced the inception of the "America's Marine Highway" program in April (Logistics Management, May 2010; www.logisticsmgmt.com). For those weary of bailouts and stimuli, the initial grants involve under $100 million (with an "m" not a "b").
Are short-sea and other maritime transport modes really viable in the US? I don't know. I do suspect that longer-distance river transport could be more employed than it is if: 1) shippers stopped to think about it, and 2) locks and other infrastructure elements were upgraded and maintained. But, it does seem reasonable that, if Secretary LaHood's concept embodied compelling merit, profit-motivated players in the private sector would have jumped on the notion quite some time ago.
It's appealing that there might be environmental benefits to the movement of goods over water instead of over the road (either rail or highway). In the wake of BP's catastrophic misadventure in the Gulf, there might be some concern about the environmental risks of a maritime shipping accident involving who knows what kind of cargo.
In the broader economic equation, I'd like to know if marine highway proponents have considered: 1) the cost of added handling and delay if a water link were to be added to supply chains; and/or 2) the added complexity of introducing more players into the complex business relationships that make up end-to-end supply chains.
The tragic and catastrophic Gulf oil spill has, regrettably, some vital lessons for the world of business relationships in supply chain management. At the risk of trespassing on Chuck Taylor's turf, let me 'splain.
BP Plc, the well's majority owner, gets most of the ink. They're on the hook for the entire cost of clean-up, plus $75 million in ither damages. Seems a paltry sum to compensate for the destruction of entire industries, ecosystems, and people's lives and livelihoods. Under pressure, pun intended, BP has quickly pointed the fickle finger of blame at Transocean Ltd, the well's driller and operator, blaming "their systems, their people."
Transocean - no fools, they - quickly downloaded responsibility to its subcontractors, specifically naming Halliburton (the #2 oilfield services company) and its cement casing work. They claimed that they had made no errors, but the issue might be moot because BP had indemnified Transocean in their contract. Halliburton counter-punched with an unequivocal statement that the cement work had been completed on time and had been tested, showing that the work had been "properly" done.
Meanwhile, the well's blowout preventer, which did not cause the spill, but failed to prevent the lethal blast, was found to be leaky and less-than-100% reliable. It's manufacturer, Cameron International Corporation has seen a 25% drop in its stock value. But, according to some, Transocean was responsible for the BOP's maintenance.
In a public move worthy of Pontius Pilate, Anadarko Petroleum, the well's 25% owner claims to have had nuthin' to do with nuthin' in that they merely approved a budget amount, relatively late in the process. Btw, the Federal government's Minerals Management Services seems to have at least a finger in this dog's breakfast, as well.
Are these the kinds of moves made by genuine partners in open, collaborative supply chains, integrated and synchronized to work together in delivering product, quality, and value to its ultimate customers? Or, are these the behaviors of companies that don't know how to create and maintain sustainable business relationships for the greater good of both themselves and their customers? It makes no diffference that the supply chain(s) involved are related to infrastructure build and maintenance, and not to the delivery of consumer goods.
I'm betting that what we are witnessing, in the midst of a disaster, is a chilling illustration of short-term, "git 'er done" transactional relationships that take the money now, and the devil take the hindmost. I'm also betting that the sinister dance will become more complex, with more intensity, and with more entities involved as more commas work their way into the total price tag.
What do you think?
I'm grappling with a concept again, which is no surprise - nothing comes easy to someone with my limited candlepower. Malcolm Gladwell devotes considerable space in Outliers to the premise that exceptional intelligence might be of little incremental value in the real world, that being "smart enough" is good enough to provide a foundation for success.
I've been trying to apply the principle to the world of supply chain management and how the players in a given supply chain relate to one another. Apologies if I'm twisting the author's meaning and intent a bit. I do agree that a level of intelligence that makes people - and organizations - capable of operating only in some bizarre parallel universe doesn't help make things go well in everyday life.
But, if I were constructing a supply chain designed for success, I'm inclined to think that I'd pick participants who were somewhat better than smart enough. It's like choosing up sides for a schoolyard game - you want players who are better than good enough, but you might avoid the superstar divas (unless you, yourself, are the diva).
Then, I'd be looking for supply chain partners who were also creative and innovative. Not simply creative enough, but better than creative enough, without being completely undisciplined and wildly impractical, or even irrelevant.
The importance of - and difference between honest enough and better than honest enough is a discussion for another day, but you get the idea.
Am I wrong? Aren't we all striving to create solutions, organizations, and business relationships that are noticably better than good enough, without losing traction in a fruitless quest for the diminishing returns of absolute perfection?
Note: Achieving perfect order performance is not a fruitlesss quest; it is a byproduct of being noticably better than good enough.
The late philosopher, music theorist, and remarkably chemical-free visionary, Frank Zappa, once observed: "You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."
In the same spirit, I wonder if you can have a real supply chain without an infrastructure. My thesis is that you cannot. Having visited places without much of a physical infrastructure - roads, railways, communications, etc. - over the past several years, and as recently as last week, I remain skeptical of vague claims of being part of the supply chain management universe. In Jimmy Durante's memorable complaint, "Everybody wants to get into da act!"
Never mind that the ultimate infrastructure concept of multi-directional supply chain rlationships remains mysterious to all too many pretenders in the no-barriers-to-entry world of self-proclaimed supply chain management.
But a lot of high-sounding phrases, citations of standard concepts, all augmented with seminars, workshops, and conferences populated with learned local academics and imported guest experts aren't the same as day-to-day supply chain execution at ground level. Too often, they reflect wishful thinking and self-congratulatory make-believe - Potemkin villages constructed for the sole purpose of getting into da act.
Kellogg’s prides itself on quality cereal and other food products. The quality exemplified by Kellogg’s is due to the ability to specialize its team in producing food products, not logistical tasks. For this reason, Kellogg’s recruits other businesses to handle these responsibilities; activity essential to supply chain management and a successful product or service. Stock, transportation and marketing of Kellogg’s products allows the different links of their supply chain to act cohesively. Kellogg’s employs TDG, a storage company, to handle stocking and pallet responsibilities of their product. Kellogg’s also holds a relationship with Kimberly Clark, an industrial supply manufacturer, with whom Kellogg’s shares transportation methods. Lastly, Kellogg’s relationship with Tesco, a food retailer, exemplifies Kellogg’s specialty marketing through creation of an advertising unit for use in retail stores. By Kellogg’s dividing product responsibility, it allows the company to save time and money while increasing competitiveness in product and maintaining brand integrity. Kellogg’s reduced costs by: not having to employ more workers to complete said tasks, decreasing the number of empty transportation vehicles and not having to expand production space for storage purposes. Without Kellogg’s business relationships, they may not be able to hold high standards to their products because they would need to concentrate on other aspects of business than food product creation alone. The information provided can be found on the Times 100 website.
Kellogg’s prides itself on quality cereal and other food products. The quality exemplified by Kellogg’s is due to the ability to specialize its team in producing food products, not logistical tasks. For this reason, Kellogg’s recruits other businesses to handle these responsibilities; activity essential to supply chain management and a successful product or service.
Stock, transportation and marketing of Kellogg’s products allows the different links of their supply chain to act cohesively. Kellogg’s employs TDG, a storage company, to handle stocking and pallet responsibilities of their product. Kellogg’s also holds a relationship with Kimberly Clark, an industrial supply manufacturer, with whom Kellogg’s shares transportation methods. Lastly, Kellogg’s relationship with Tesco, a food retailer, exemplifies Kellogg’s specialty marketing through creation of an advertising unit for use in retail stores.
By Kellogg’s dividing product responsibility, it allows the company to save time and money while increasing competitiveness in product and maintaining brand integrity. Kellogg’s reduced costs by: not having to employ more workers to complete said tasks, decreasing the number of empty transportation vehicles and not having to expand production space for storage purposes. Without Kellogg’s business relationships, they may not be able to hold high standards to their products because they would need to concentrate on other aspects of business than food product creation alone.
The information provided can be found on the Times 100 website.
Arby’s has made a joint venture with McLane as its distribution channel. This will help Arby’s to expand its market shares in Texas and surrounding states by using McLane’s great distributing system.
I think it is a good idea for Arby’s to be partnered with McLane due to the benefits they will receive. Being a partner with McLane, McLane will provide many services to Arby’s such as logistics, procurement and inventory management solutions. In addition, a vice president of supply chain at Arby’s Restaurant Group said that McLane’s efficiencies have supported their growth as a world-class supply chain organization. On the other hand, McLane is also happy being a distributor of Arby’s because Arby’s is a great and successful restaurant.
I think this is significant because both of the companies are benefited a lot from this joint venture. I think overall it will increase both companies’ profitability and will build a strong relationship between them. Plus, as Arby’s expansion increases, it will create many jobs for people.
I think it is not easy to pick a good business partner like Arby’s and McLane. There are various criteria to be considered in order to make such decision. For example, they need to consider whether they are sharing the same objective and code of ethics. This will prevent unnecessary disagreements which can disrupt sales. They also need to think about the image and the reputation of the companies and whether they received positive customer feedback.
What do you all think about this article? Please comment on it!!!
http://www.food-business-review.com/news/arbys_beefs_up_relationship_with_mclane_for_texas_market_091117
http://cgb.com/browse.asp?page=380
Consolidated Grain and Barge is a leading grain origination company that deals primarily with Japanese customers buying non-gmo corn and soybeans. In an effort to ensure quality grains are being grown CGB has “Incorporated ISO 9001:2008 into their management systems.” This information is important for the end consumer to know that the grain he is purchasing has been through rigorous testing and met a multitude of quality control measures.
The ISO certification program offers a benefit for the consumer in knowing that what he bought is to the exact specifications he has requested. This results in the consumer paying a premium for the grain which in turn allows the grower to receive a premium above the market price, as well. CGB plays a key role in managing this crucial relationship between the grower and the end consumer. Providing ISO quality certifications will ensure a consistent quality product for many years to come.
Less than a year after the controversial and frankly nauseating documentary, Food Inc, which focused a large portion of its camera-time on the poultry growing industry, Tyson Foods is again under scrutiny. Recently, ten Oklahoma chicken growers won a $7.3 million lawsuit filed against Tyson. The lawsuit claimed that Tyson “defrauded a group of 10 McCurtain County chicken growers through a series of deceptive and coercive business practices”. In the lawsuit, chicken growers claimed that Tyson used its “tremendous economic clout” to force them into growing chickens at less than break-even costs. They also claimed that Tyson used ”verbal and financial pressure” to persuade growers to construct more modern chicken houses that would eventually force growers to follow any Tyson demands no matter how unreasonable because of their large debt load. They went on to say that Tyson consequently punished growers who refused to upgrade by providing them with inferior quality feed and chicks, as well as paying them less for their mature birds.
This was just the first of many similar trials that are slated to take place over the same claims. More than 50 chicken growers initially filed a lawsuit in May 2008 against Tyson Foods.
We cannot cite many instances to add a lot of value up the supply chain in most agriculture sectors and see margins bigger at the retail level than at the farmer end, but this is just an issue of company mistreatment of its supply chain. While Tyson’s company is at fault for attempting to defraud farmers, I’d like to point my attention towards the farmer. This is clearly a case of an unhealthy business relationship with the upstream supplier side gets the short end of the stick due to financial power. My questions are (1) do you believe that these suits will change the way Tyson treats its suppliers, (2) Tyson mentioned leaving the area since it could be legally risky, how can Tyson generate other farmers’ confidence in their tarnished reputation if they leave or is it negligible due to relatively few jobs in southern rural areas, and (3) personally, as a consumer, do stories like this deter you from buying a company’s product?
In my opinion, Tyson will realize that this could be potentially disastrous for its company. If anyone has any ethics in upper management, I believe they will remove the people responsible for this issue before it is too late (wishful thinking?). Being one of the United States’ top chicken manufactures, there is too much at stake to risk going under. I think that if Tyson goes through with its threat it will be very difficult to convince farmers to grow especially if they don’t have any capital in place already. I see them possibly expanding production at already contracted chicken houses with big incentives given to the farmers or in the future vertically integrating themselves to grow the chickens themselves to hedge from legal risk. Personally, however, this will not affect my shopping, which I predict is the same for most people. I see consumer health and price prevailing over the mistreatment of chicken farmers in this situation.
Check the article out for yourselves and let me know what you think on the subject: http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100403/articles/100409805?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar
l-L-L – I-N-I is a chant that is frequently heard around the U of I campus, and the last three letters of the cry could be the most important: to companies in the food industry.
I-N-I can be thought of as an acronym that stands for Integrate-Network-Innovate. Researchers from three international universities have conducted studies that suggest strong networking relationships can have positive effects on vertical integration and innovation. Having a unique relationship with a supplier should be the cornerstone of any integration strategy, and these strong relationships can prove their worth whether unforeseen problems arise during production or if a contract is up for negotiation.
Networking with partners should not be overlooked either, as research has shown that these relationships are at the forefront of product innovation. More networking equals more communication, and information can be shared on areas such as supply chain management and product development that could go a long way in strengthening both companies.
However, this article fails to mention ways that existing companies can improve their networking skills either in their supply chain or with external partners. So this leaves me wondering, what are some ways that companies in the food industry can strengthen their networks to achieve the results as described in the article?
Links:
How does one know where to draw the lines among au courant, avant garde, and limitless self-indulgence? And, why does Lady Gaga immediately spring to mind when the question is posed in that fashion?
Similar definitional questions might be - and have been - asked about how and what to call the flow of goods and materials from origin to comsumption, or application, and - sometimes - back again. A recent LinkedIn discussion got all manner of folks' undergarments in a bunch as they tried to distinguish between supply chains and value chains. As opinions flew in from across the planet, a recent convert to the Church of Lean managed to slip value streams into the punchbowl.
This exercise was about as time-consuming - and useful - as the centuries-old debate around the vital question of how many angels might be able to dance on the head of a pin. It reminded me of arguments a couple of decades ago, when some ambitious, but misguided, consultants waged all-out war to replace "supply chain management" with "demand chain management." They clearly failed in the attempt, but the apparently primal urges to create new terms to replace names that already exist remain strong, especially when someone hopes to cash in on the "new" concept.
We'd be significantly farther ahead of the game by putting our collective energies and creativity into making supply chains, and the business relationships that power them, work better, rather than fighting over names to give to what it is that we do. That's a biased view to be sure, and I welcome opposing perspectives, but I'm inclined to focus on getting the job done before indulging in the luxury of semantic antics.
CFO magazine is poaching on our turf - again. Or, maybe they're beginning to get the importance of supply chain management, with a more-or-less regular supply chain column. This time out (the March 2010 issue, also available at www.cfo.com), they've promoted supply chain stratgeies as tools to improve cash flow.
A favored technique appears to be for companies to shift away from traditional products and methods, and toward a different set of core products, more sophisticated, higher-tech, and higher-margin marketplace offerings. Interesting, and valid, at least from a CFO's perspective.
But, who fills the vacuum when trading partners can no longer rely on long-time suppliers for nuts-and-bolts parts or commodity materials? Who builds business relationships with new supply chain partners? And, how long does that process take?
Can the companies in question quickly convince their old supply chain partners that they are the right partners for a new population of recently-developed and more complex set of offerings?
Ironically, the same issue of CFO suggests that it may be time to accelerate the pace of advancement of CFO's to the CEO's corner office suite. Coincidence? Perhaps not.
I'm not saying that these strategic moves are wrong, and I'll cheerfully acknowledge that the companies are appropriately in business to make money. I am suggesting, though, that they're not as easy to execute as a snap of the fingers in the boardroom. And, they might not be, contrary to the received wisdom of newly-minted B-school graduates, right for every company. In the event, no organization contemplating such a strategic restructuring can afford to lose sight of the reality that supply chains are far more involved in their complex dynamics than any one company's insular focus on itself alone.
Customer Needs Assessments require active listening and quick critical thinking. Customer needs assessments serve as tools to help clients problem solve. They work well to address and resolve customer vision and priorities, create and capitalize on business opportunities, end dissatisfaction with underperforming suppliers, recover deteriorating relationships, strengthen existing relationships, grow and thrive in developing industries, develop greater understanding of a competitor, and improve overall performance.
This makes customer needs assessments seem straight forward, and in many cases, they are not. The best and most successful consultants will listen to what the client says about the customer needs assessment and be able to sift through the words to pull out the real issue, which may be hidden.
This boils down to one of my favorite principles of business management and relationship management: listening. It is a very real, very critical and powerful skill.
Cue the music and wait for Frankie Lymon. Why do birds sing so gay? And lovers await the break of day? And bloggers carry on that way? What does motivate bloggers, anyway? Fade music.
It's painfully obvious in wandering about the web that blogging is cathartic for some, venting and getting even with the forces of evil, or high school nemeses, or arbiters of fashion - whatever. For others, blogging is a never-ending ego trip, a ride on the fantasy railroad of self-absorbtion. Some do, in fact, strive to objectively inform, about an incredible range of subjects.
Still others, though, blog with the intention of provoking people to think, or to think in different ways, about events and conditions that bear on their daily lives - either personal or professional. If our occasional poking at the anthill with a sharp stick generates a little dialogue, whether in dispute or in agreement, so much the better.
For me, blogging has been a way of sharing how the things I've serendipitously stumbled across relate to the promise and power of business relationships, especially those in the world of supply chain management.
The good news is that there's more going on than I can possibly keep up with and comment on. The bad news is that I'm going to keep trying.
There may be some subtle difference between harping and nagging; if there is, it escapes me. I do know that harpers and naggers often try to take cover under the But-I-Was-Just-Reminding-You bushes.
So, why do I keep harping on the importance of well-conceived and executed business relationships in the world of supply chain management?
For openers, Chuck Poirier from CSC, Morgan Swink from Michigan State, and SCMR's Frank Quinn have recently published Diagnosing Greatness: Ten Traits of the Best Supply Chains. Their ten common denominators that lead to higher revenues and lower operating costs include "collaboration with selected partners" and "high customer integration and satisfaction."
When two of the ten components of greatness are directly related to core principles of business relationships (and contribute mightily to at least four of the others), I believe that little more needs to be said.
It's time to get off the win-lose bus and on to the win-win express of business relationship management in supply chains, don't you think?
Ron Maciejowski is the Vice President of Sales for Worthington Industries. He sits on the board of all Worthington Industrial Joint Ventures and Recreation Unlimited.
Kathy Hoyt, a senior consultant with S4 Consulting, sat down with Ron recently. The interview is transcribed below.
_______________________________________________________
Kathy Hoyt: How has your approach to handling business relationships evolved throughout your professional career?
Ron Maciejowski: In the early days (1970's) there was more of the attitude that there was enough in a sale for everyone to be profitable. The pie was always growing and all parties could profit (our company, our supplier, our customer).
Today , many people think the pie is a set size which means you have to take the profitability out of someone else's pocket. To some extent that is true if we don't get back to growing our economy in the right way and making the pie bigger. This has put much stress on the customer/supplier relationship.
Kathy: Who helped you develop business relationship skills and how?
Ron: Mentors, the guys who brought me into the business. They showed me here's how we do it. You have to build the relationship to get close to the customer. You do that by:
Kathy: How has your attitude and/or skills contributed to personal or company's success?
Ron: I learned by example. If I made a mistake, I wasn't called on it openly in public. I learned to do the same things with my people. People are much more productive if not publicly reprimanded.
I also learned to listen to "the other side" of what was being said - try to understand both sides before jumping in.
Kathy: Can you recall a time when someone handled a relationship in such a way that it saved the sale?
Ron: Yes, there's been times when we walked out better than when we walked in. When there was a problem with a customer and it was our fault we would go in, accept responsibility, offer no excuses and get the problem fixed as soon as possible.
Other opportunities can evolve if you just admit it and fix it because if you can't fix it in a timely manner it will kill the relationship. As part of supply chain, we don't have total control over a situation but the main thing is don't make excuses - just fix it.
Kathy: Can you recall a time when the absence of a relationship has lost a sale or a customer?
Ron: We had a customer recently who didn't feel we thought he was important. A quote got to this customer which was completely inaccurate - way too high.
He assumed we didn't care about his business and we were just sending a quote to get it off our desk. We had been doing about 40% to 100% of his business and he pulled it all because we didn't appear to care enough about him. It certainly was not the case (many internal discussions about what went wrong) because it in fact was very important business to us.
We are working very hard to recapture our customers trust and confidence.
Kathy: What does Worthington Industries do make relationship management a core competency?
Ron: Everyone does it differently but our philosophy of treat the customer they way you want to be treated has always applied.
The philosophy is presented during orientation and reinforced. If someone doesn't buy into the philosophy, they usually don't last very long around here.
Kathy: How do you measure to see if business relationship management is working?
Ron: Amount of business from that customer, they tell us about opportunities for new business and if they come to us for solutions to help their business we know our relationship is solid.
Kathy: What advice do you have to give to people who want to develop skills in business relationship?
Ron: Listen to what the customer is saying. Everyone wants something from you. You just have to learn what the gap is (the difference between what they have and what they want) and then figure out what I can do to fill the gap.
Kathy: What one piece of advice would you give the people who are managing customer relationships?
Ron: Put yourself in the customer's shoes and treat him the way you would want to be treated.
Give the customer timely information, correct information and do what you say you are going to do.
Kathy: How do you think the economy has affected business relationships?
Ron: Everyone is fearful right now about their companies staying in business and their keeping a job.
People are more stressed and just want more time at home. The relationships today are on a more professional level than in the past. However, it is a mistake to assume that people don't buy on personal relationships.
That gets back to building trust, gaining confidence by doing what you say you will do and making the customer look good by providing excellent service and providing a high level of perceived value.
_______________________________________________________
Thanks, Ron!
Business Relationships Members, do you have any other questions for Ron or Kathy?
Ron Maciejowski began his career with Worthington Steel in 1972 and held various sales posiions until going into management in 1981. He has served as Vice President of Sales at Worthington Industries since 2008.
This winter we have had a lot of snow, so I have been staying inside watching reality TV shows on Bravo.
I used to think it as a mindless activity-no offense Bravo, I am a huge fan-- but lately they have offered great insight and food for thought in regards to management, team work, and most importantly, business relationships.
My new favorite show, Kell on Earth, follows a fashion public relations, marketing and branding firm called People's Revolution.
People's Revolution was founded by Kelly Cutrone, show's namesake. Episodes are undoubtedly edited to highlight drama and failure-many the results of miscommunication and vague delegation of responsibility, but the fact is that many of the members of the team are not meeting expectations and deadlines, and that threatens the health of the relationships with the firm's clients.
The 'a-ha' moment came out of a segment with a newly appointed manager of interns. She learned the hard way that just because you ask someone to do something, it doesn't mean they actually follow through and complete the task, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that they will be done correctly.
Next up is an analysis of Project Runway, or, a case study on how big egos and opposition to collaboration on team challenges end in lose-lose situations and tarnish relationships.
In the real world, partners in supply chains typically have widely varying skill, competency, experience, and maturity profiles. That's consultant-speak for "some players are stronger, and some are weaker." In leveraged and progressive supply chains, the stronger partners have responsibilities to lead, mentor, and teach the others how to get better, not only in raw performance but also in risk management and mitigation.
If the grown-up in the room finds that the other organizations in the overall supply chain can't or won't respond to the required leadership, perhaps they aren't the right partners. On the flip side, if the weaker players aren't getting the leadership and instruction they need to grow and eevelop, maybe they're in the wrong supply chain altogether, and need to find new relationships.
It's sad to see the "A" players and the "B" players pointing fingers at one another like 6-year olds in the wake of a problem. The "A" players have got to act like grown-ups, or maybe they're not really "A" players where it counts. Size and naked power alone do not confer grown-up status on a supply chain partner.
This challenge can become mission-critical for ultimate supply chain success in the marketplace when one of the partners is a logistics service provider (LSP, or 3PL). While it is possible that a relatively new 3PL can be manhandled by a big and savvy customer, it is frequently the case that the customer is less-experienced and less-aware than a diversified multi-customer service provider.
That's when the LSP - in a genuine supply chain business relationship - needs to be the grown-up in the room, and lead the customer to success, taking every care to not let the customer slip off the path into a dismal swamp of risk and failure.