I’ve spent the last few months on chemotherapy and have had to visit the chemo clinic every three weeks for four-hour refills. When I arrived for my first treatment, I was scared, having no idea what to expect and was not at all fond of having metal projectiles shoved into my body. I was taken in hand by one of the nurses there, who put me in a chair and then asked me if I had any questions about what was about to happen. My chief question was “What is it going to do to me?” but as nice as the nurse was, she couldn’t peer into my future. But it was nice to be asked. She stuck me and I started to get what felt like eight quarts of chemicals fed into my body.
The nurse checked back with me about every five or so minutes. During the treatment one of my injected chemicals made me freezing cold and the nurse, seeing it, asked if I would like a blanket. “I’d like two,” I said hopefully. She not only brought me blankets—she brought me heated blankets, which helped tremendously.
Each time I have gone to the clinic, another nurse has taken me to a chair, gotten me comfortable and started the drip. I have also had many interactions with the front desk and other nurses in the clinic. As yet, I have not come across one nurse who is not unfailingly polite, helpful, and clearly focused on my needs. Because this has not been my experience with medical professionals (or in retail situations), I asked to speak to the manager of the clinic to find out how she had brought together so many competent customer-focused people. I was able to make an appointment with the manager.
She said that she would interview folks to see if they were kind and if they were listeners. I asked her how she was able to determine this. She said that she could tell if people were listeners in the first five minutes of the interview. If the interviewee interrupted or was clearly more interested in their next comment rather than what the interviewer was saying, she crossed them off. She said determining kindness was more difficult. She said she used a combination of direct questions (Give me a time when your empathy saved a difficult situation.) but also body language. She began moving like a woman in pain, with grimaces and low moans. If the interviewee asked about what was wrong, she won points. If she listened carefully to the interviewer’s explanation of the pain, she won more points. The clinic manager then said that ultimately she listened to what her gut told her about the interviewee. She said that her process required interviewing many more people than similar clinics would interview for similar positions but she also felt she had a good group of people, a sentiment with which I agreed.
I believe there is a huge lesson here for businesspeople. If you hire kind listeners—not just for customer service positions but also for executive, managers, supervisors, line employees, salespeople, warehouse people, you will end up with customer-focused people. It will cost you more interviews. But ask yourself how much non-customer-focused people have already cost your company. JS
A good friend of many years was recently bemoaning what he sees as the continuing decline of manufacturing in the US. His biggest complaint was that, every time a plant closes, its engineers hit the streets newly badged as "lean" consultants.
"Lean" indeed - a larger population trying to capture bigger pieces of a shrinking pie.
I don't have the data to challenge his contentions. Clearly, a lot of manufacturiung has left our shores over the past couple of decades. But, we still manufacture many things, although perhaps not on the scale of what General Motors plants used to look like. Certainly not at the employment and production levels of twenty years ago. That said, we're still in the early stages of in-shoring and right-shoring movements, and productivity - if not production - continues to climb throughout the sector.
It's possible that my morose amigo has seen his consulting and training business shrink because, at least in part, of other factors. More and better-educated and better-trained engineers and operators. Radical shifts in learning and knowledge transfer paradigms. Tired branding and terminology.
And maybe - just maybe - more companies are learning from one another in close relationships, and have focused, targeted, and empathetic partners to help them improve performance. Or perhaps they are getting help from subject matter experts with different styles, with different kinds of client relationships, and with different approaches to salvation that go beyond traditional projects and programs.
Seems to me that part of staying in the game - and ahead of the pack - in the 21st century is continual reinvention . . . within a supply chain, within a company, within a product, and within oneself. I'm just sayin' . . .
Costco continues to amuse and amaze by offering more than the usual products to pile in the cart. The Costco Connection magazine for June (www.costco.com, "connection") has a page devoted to "Fresh Views," with mini-features on: Wally "Famous" Amos (who has moved on to found Wally's Muffin Company),brainstorming techniques, and a quick summary of a 2009 book, Extraordinary Groups: How Ordinary Teams Achieve Amazing Results.
My big takeaways this month, aside from a hankering for a muffin or a chocolate chip cookie, were from Extraordinary Groups. One - not quite an aha! moment - was that a group dynamic can hinder, rather than stimulate, group productivity. The other was that "exceptional experiences can be thoughtfully nurtured and intentionally encouraged."
Good stuff, but the authors may have missed the larger point, which is that transporting tools and techniques for elevating group performance, to the operation of business relationships involving entire companies, can magnify and multiply the consequences of what might be accomplished.
Maybe an even greater message, though, lies in how Costco works at a fuller customer relationship by providing unexpected value, beyond the nuts and bolts of selling them tires and tube steaks.
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.
Each week, I make an effort to read the Sunday New York Times' Corner Office interview. Last Sunday the interview was with Dan Rosensweig, CEO of Chegg. The title was compelling: "Always Thank Your Your Star Players." That's great advice. Everyone likes recognition for their efforts.
The most interesting piece of the interview, in my opinion, is the way Rosensweig begins executive staff meetings. He notes that everyone is very wired these days - technology is portable so it's particularly hard to tear ourselves away from email, text messages and other distractions.
In an effort to be "be present," he asks each executive at the meeting to share two things on their minds, one personal and one professional. That eases the transition into the meeting, and helps with focus.
Most importantly, in my opinion, is that it puts the relationship before the task - which is a key component to a strong relationships in business.
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.
Kevin Cornish (atrisk.net) recently blogged about situational values and fake parts in the supply chain. His best line? ". . . the human element matters more than ever . . ."
Citing the loquacious, but nearly always on-target, Tom Friedman from the New York Times, Cornish introduced the ultimate reality that all partners in supply chain relationships must become more responsible because we can't shield ourselves from the irresponsibility of others.
Right on, Kevin; right on, Tom!
But, do consider this. The issue of values among supply chain collaborators would be much easier to deal with in those cases of building the right kinds of relationships with the right kinds of people (i.e., organizations) in the first instance.
Think about the potential for financial and emotional catastrophes lurking in trying to extricate oneself from an E&J Gallo-induced marriage to a pole dancer of recent acquaintance.
It's much tougher to reconcile value systems after the fact, when commitments have been made on a superficial basis, cost per transaction for example, rather than on the value of integrated and collaborative efforts in a competitive marketplace.
Kathy: How do you think that your skills and ability in handling business relationships have evolved over your career?
Todd: I think that from where I started to where I am now I have a better appreciation and understanding of my customers’ business. And I think that by that evolution I’m able to talk more of their talk, obviously bring more value because I do understand their business. And by virtue of bringing that value, I believe that creates a better relationship. There is trust, there’s experience, there’s information flow, all those things.
In turn, again, I think that understanding your customers’ business builds a whole foundation for a relationship and things go along with that.
Kathy: So is it just your maturity or your experience of understanding the business?
Todd: Understanding through time, their business, and all the intricacies of their business and what they believe is value, what their issues are as they go about their day-to-day. Of course understanding what we do for them and put it together. These processes build relationships that are pretty much invaluable as you get to the end of the day.
I really believe when it comes to selling and the art of building relationships some of this is just inherent. I think you either have it or you don’t. I don’t think there is an in between.
So yes, you can get a better foundation, a better baseline, but when it comes down to it, to answer your question—I had somebody to show me the door, but when the door was open I inherently knew the things necessary to take those relationships and build on them.
Kathy: Do you look for that in hiring?
Todd: We sure try.
Kathy: It’s easier to teach them product than it is to teach them inherent skills.
Todd: It really is. And unfortunately we’ve hired people and we’ve had to let people go, not because they are not good people, but because when what we are trying to do in the market somebody can be very technically based and understand products.
But when the day is done if they can’t make a connection with somebody and build on that, then it’s not going to work. So unfortunately we’ve hired and let people go simply because they got to a certain point where they had all the technical skills in the world but that inherent piece, relating to a customer, couldn’t be met.
Kathy: Do you think it can be taught?
Todd: I don’t think it can, I really don’t. Some people are better than others in terms of how well they are able to get in there and connect.
One of the conversations I had, Kathy, you know this, is we had a regional meeting a few months ago. We were talking about our staffing and the people. We really tried to assess our competitors. We know what we are about. We know the things we are doing. But we really tried to put our shoe on the other foot of our competitors and figure out what they do better.
One of the things that came up from one of our formidable competitors is that they are just “guys guys,” as we put it. They put a team together that people want to be around. This is the stuff we are talking about—the inherent ability that they hire the people who have the innate ability to get in and make things happen, to build relationships.
We have better technical people, I’m convinced. But at the end of the day a lot of our customers want to be around people they want to be around. I don’t think you can teach that, I think you know it.
Kathy: All the inside sales people that I’ve listened to, the relationships that they have with their customers, is amazing. How do you measure it? How do you know if they are developing good business relationships?
Todd: How I gauge it today is far different than how I used to gauge it. Today, as I look at it is, are we able to use this relationship to make money? Because their—our customers’—job, and I don’t begrudge anybody, everybody is doing the job. But their job is to buy the best they possibly can. Our job is to sell the highest price we possibly can.
Relationships give you the opportunity to negotiate or give you an opportunity to do the work. I’m gauging the relationship today as, ‘Can you do all that and at the end of the day you are making money?’
We want better relationships. We don’t have a training program for that because, again, it is right back to what I said. We know inherently people either have it or don’t. We put them in the position. We want them to get to know people. We want them to do the things that they are doing.
But our managers now are really trying to use relationships. At the end of the day, are we able to use those relationships to make money?
It is not any more or any less just trying to be equitable with our customers. We are just trying to find that equitable approach where we are both winning in that situation.
Kathy: What advice would you give people, be it in sales or finance or operations, who really want to develop their business relationship skills?
Todd: Unfortunately you tend to live in the snapshot of where you are today. Things are changing so fast that you can’t assume anything anymore.
You can’t assume you have the relationship. You can’t assume you have the share. You can’t assume that you are doing great on service.
Make sure you understand what is in front of you because in some cases we are assuming a lot of things out there that just aren’t the case. Again, the economy has forced people to really do things they wouldn’t even consider doing a year or two years ago. That’s the assumption piece I was talking about. We just can’t assume much.
But I still believe on the relationship side of things, that at the end of the day it’s still what is keeping us in the game.
Price is big, but that same survey I mentioned, price was 3rd out of whatever category. It was still about trust and still about the product, the value and then of course price was there. It’s not the end all be all. But I think relationships are still giving us that opportunity to succeed to the best of our ability in the market today.
Have we over-outsourced our supply chains? Michael L. Hetzel, a vice president at ProQC International, says that we in the US have, in a paper distributed to American Society for Quality (ASQ) members. I believe that we have done so in Europe, as well.
Hetzel maintains that extended and distant supply chain structures have isolated and siloed procurement, quality, design, and logistics functions, with each focused on its own objectives and measurements - to the detriment of the end-to-end supply chain.
The stunning realization in all this is that loosely-connected functions in the supply chain are more likely to fall apart under stress than a strong system of better-integrated links would be. There may be no stronger argument than this for the value of - the necessity for - carefully structured business relationships among supply chain partners.
Perhaps near-shoring, in-shoring, right-shoring and the like might mitigate the consequences somewhat. But, the risk of supply chain catastrophe in a world of bankruptcies, sudden and sometimes unforseeable communications and logistics breakdowns, economic turmoil, civil unrest, government actions, and Icelandic volcanic eruptions is simply too great to do otherwise.
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 Q1 issue of CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly (www.supplychainquarterly.com) features an article, Time for a checkup?, that suggests a thorough supply chain examination might uncover logistics cost reduction possibilities of ten to twenty per cent.
The approach proposed is well-thought-out, well-structured, comprehensive, and useful. And, yet, I couldn't shake the lyrics of a children's song, "Miss Lucy called the doctor, Miss Lucy called the nurse . . ."
My challenge with the piece is that the program appears to contemplate a more-or-less static and self-contained system, with singular control and direction. Some mention is made of variable service levels for different products, customers, and/or markets, and one illustration includes a cryptic note about "trucking and other service providers."
Ultimately, my contention is that optimizing one element of an end-to-end supply chain, without the involvement - and collaboration - of other players in the chain, risks sub-optimizing the whole. Not to mention that it fails to leverage the knowledge and experience of all partners in the chain.
The authors, Dr. Timm Gudhus, a consultant from Hamburg, and Dr. Herbert Kotzab, a professor at the respected Copenhagen Business School, do allow that "there continues to be a gap between logistics theory and business practice." It is possible that, in some dimensions, business practice might be out in front of theory. My hypothesis might be that the audit process described could be orders-of-magnitude more effective if greater weight were to be given to the integration and relationships among supply chain partners, rather than being limited to the mechanics of product flow.
Okay, we've heard from the doctor(s) and we've heard from the nurse. I've no clue what we might hear from the lady with the alligator purse.
Don't get all lathered up, it's only a song title. I may be erratic, but I'm not delusional.
Respected veteran supply chain journalist Jean Murphy recently wrote that stronger supplier relationships are a "post-recession priority." (Supply Chain Brain, May 2010; www.supplychainbrain.com) She went on to outline the stresses that tough economic times put on outsourced and/or extended supply chains. Now, businesses are struggling to get their supply chains up to speed, she continued.
Right Said Fred, invoking the name of a band from the era of Frankie Goes To Hollywood and Cocteau Twins. Right Said Fred, btw, gave us the marvelous tune referenced above. But, do I hear the strains of Carole King and It's Too Late in the background?
Where was all this concern when it really mattered, at the worst of the hard times? Wasn't that the right time to go the extra mile to keep things together, to invest in maintaining the business relationships that would make the difference when recovery inevitably arrived? Of course it was.
Those who did so are going to be way ahead of those who didn't (and are scrambling today). And those who are turning to advanced technology to make up for lost time - and lost opportunity - are likely to be disappointed. Remember that for the next downturn - or if this recession turns out to have a double dip in its course.
When the late night conversation turns to this particular topic, my friends sometimes accuse me of going all DJ and channeling Wolfman Jack on speed - oh, wait, that's redundant.
Don't get me wrong. Technology is great, and can propel supplier relationships to higher levels of performance. But it is no substitute for having built and tended to the human side of the equation - the "for better or worse" commitment of authentic human representatives of enterprises in advanced supply chains that can weather extreme challenges, rebound, and move forward.
Wal-Mart brecently announced an intiiative to take over the transport of products from its suppliers into its distribution network. The move might be seen as a natural extension of its traditional practice of requiring suppliers to distribute to Wal-Mart network locations, rather than to the individual stores. The ostensible objective? To reduce costs (and perhaps roll back some more prices).
Benign on the surface; possibly even commendable. But, what are the consequences, unintended or otherwise, on suppliers' relationships with their carriers and other logistics service providers? They'll have less product to ship with their (often long-standing) transportation partners. Those partners will have less business, overall. Maybe, with capacity reductions made during the recession, that's manageable. But the question is unavoidable. With lower volumes, will supply chain costs for customers and channels other than Wal-Mart increase? Will that make supply chains vying with Wal-Mart in the marketplace less cost-competitive?
Wal-Mart's prominence in the world of retail supply chains is enormous, and growing - and would be even bigger and more powerful with an inbound transportation takeover. Some observers go so far as to maintain that Wal-Mart is really a supply chain operator, as much as, or even more so, than a retailer.
I surely don't attribute all of the ethical failings of George Lucas' master of the interplanetary deal to Wal-Mart. But I am occasionally reminded of Budd Schulberg's anti-hero in A Face In The Crowd, who, in a memorable phrase, "brung happiness to millions."
Do Wal-Mart's increasingly dominant supply chain - and consumer pricing - positions contain the seeds of diminishing returns, or even backlash? Are its customers really all that happy with the seductive allure of low prices? According to the June issue of Consumer Reports, not so much. Wal-Mart's ratings kept it barely (by a single point) ahead of last-place Kmart (and it was next-to-last in 2002, as well).
Wal-Mart was ranked "worse" or "much worse" in eleven of sixteen categories, and "better" in none. Maybe that reflects the demographic skew of Consumer Reports' readers. But it could mean trouble if the humongous enterprise's future growth is tied to targeting increased penetration with middle-class customers - no matter what the supply chain costs are, and no matter how the company controls its supply chain relationships.
Business relationships are built and based on many skills we all use daily in our personal lives and our professional lives: communication, trust, respect, strategy. The list goes on.
How many of you extend the same principles that make you successful at work in your home life? Real Simple Magazine guest author Patrick Lencioni employed a few of the strategies that contributed to his success in the office at home and here are the top ten strategies he recommends.
All of these sound good to remember both in one's personal life and at work. I like the application to life outside the office, and it is a reminder that strong relationships--business and personal-- make for successful people who are successful at work.
Source: Real Simple Magazine "10 Business Strategies to Organize Your Family Life," by Patrick Lencioni, accessed May 27, 2010
H. Donald Ratliff, PhD, heads Georgia Tech's SCLI Integrated Food Chain Center in Atlanta. In the April/May 2010 issue of Food Logistics magazine (www.foodlogistics.com), he discusses the increasing necessity of integrated food chains. Not desirability, not advantage, not importance. Necessity.
His thesis is that there's got to be supply chain integration among the several entities within the food chain, that the enterprises involved "must cooperate" to achieve results. So far, so good. He goes on to outline three trends that will force a greater level of integration. They are: 1) impending food safety legislation; 2) technology for monitoring and control; and, 3) the need for better analytics in an increasingly complex environment.
Hey, Don's a cool guy (pun intended). And brighter than a collector's set of mint condition state quarters. But, I think there's an element of success that's missing in this analysis.
No quarrel with the trends and their importance, but the idea that this integration has to be forced doesn't bode well for sustainable collaboration among food chain partners - or for cheerful and wholehearted cooperation. Further, I'd submit that the real secret sauce in food chain integration is building the kinds of business relationships among key players that can take the core ingredients of regulation, technology, and analytics - and transform them into a dish that is not only good for you but that tastes really good, too.
What do you think? Have I been spending too much time watching the Food Network?
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 April 14 issue of The Economist (www.economist.com) asks whether the twenty-five year (or more) run of the shareholder value model has ultimately failed. (NB: See Michael Jensen and William Meckling's 1976 "aha!" work, Theory of the Firm.) This very fine self-styled newspaper goes so far as to quote a ferociously persuasive practitioner of the model, "Neutron Jack" Welch, who, in a possible about-face, recently called shareholder value "the dumbest idea in the world."
Yet another guru, an academic writing in the Harvard Business Review, has called shareholder value a "tragically flawed premise." As an ardent adherent of the "human face" school of capitalism, I can only applaud signs of a return to a stakeholder value model, in which the interests of employees, suppliers, customers - and, yes, shareholders - are looked after in a balanced way, and with a long-term (i.e., longer than one fiscal quarter) perspective.
Here is the crux of the contest between shareholder and stakeholder value models, in my view. Can tightly integrated supply chain partners successfully maintain effective business relationships if they are not on the same4 page of the value-model hymn book? Further, does insular commitment to a shareholder value model preclude wholehearted participation in a supply chain driven by visions of collaboration, mutual benefit, and sustainable end-to-end performance for ultimate customers?
You may intuit my bias easily enough, but what's your take on the ebb and flow of competing value models?
Dominos has been in the news a lot recently because they have been attempting to change their taste. Dominos has always been known for their speedy delivery but has been near last for taste and quality. Dominos has taken lessons from coke and put them into making their new pizza. Dominos has gone through many consumer taste-testing sessions. With this new consumer information Dominos set out to make the perfect tasting pizza to go with their speedy delivery. From the advertising on the television and the web video connected to this article seems to show Dominos has succeeded in making a delicious tasting pizza. Dominos has taken lessons from coke, consumer ideas and preference, and formatted a pizza that will hopefully send them to the top of the pizza chart.
The experience Domino's has gained from making a new pizza is priceless. With the actions and thoughts Dominos has put into creating this new pizza could also be applied to any relationships they have. Like the pizza they stopped and asked what consumers what they weren't happy with and how would they like to see it change. They also had consumers taste test the product at every step along the way so that they knew the pizza would be perfect. Finally they had the perfect solution to their pizza problem. DOminos and other businesses could apply this to their relations. They need to stop and ask what their business partners want to see done and how they would fix it. Then apply changes and show the changes at various steps in the process. Then finally end up with a healthy and happy relationship. Many Companies start with their partners and shift down to the consumers, but in Domino's case they started with their customers and could apply this to every relationship they have.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/17/business/main5989576.shtml
0 0 0 <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Times New Roman"; panose-1:0 2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=F4D1A9DFCD974EAD8CD5205E15C1CB42&nm=Breaking+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129CB433&tier=3&nid=820CC37E7FA94C2387B4E483F38D04F7
This article focuses on the business relationship between a large supplier, Monsanto, and the every-day American farmer. Farmers can create margin on their product by using new innovations, such as the biotech seeds Monsanto produces, which increase the quality and yield of a product. Monsanto understands that their competitors cannot duplicate the value of their innovations, so as a differentiated supplier they raise the price of their seed. The seed provided by Monsanto can exponentially increase the growth of a farmer. However, because Monsanto is the only supplier with this quality seed, they increased price hinders the farmer’s growth. Recently, competitors of Monsanto have been decreasing their seed prices in order to gain customers by taking advantage of the large price gap between their seed and Monsanto’s.
This is relevant to the topic of business relationships because Monsanto has noticed their customer base decreasing, assed the situation, and have put time and effort into solving the business-to-business problem. Monsanto has understood that the needs of their customers are not congruent with their expectations. In order to clarify the farmer’s situation and goals for the future, Monsanto took twelve months to personally visit with over 1,200 customers. At these visits, Monsanto discovered how the farmers view their product and company. The supplier concluded that they have an “unmatched toolkit” compared to their competitors.
After thinking about Monsanto’s, the competitor’s, and farmer’s situation, I asked my self a few questions. Can the competitor’s create a bundle so that price sensitivity is not the only reason why customers choose their product? Will farmers have no choice but to purchase Monsanto’s seed because of the quality? As a supplier with an “unmatchable toolkit”, will Monsanto continue to make an effort to personally visit with their customers?