@ Supply Chain Management

WTG is hosting a free webinar : Plan for profit in real time with Supply Chain Optimisation (sic) which is presented by Shaun Phillips from Infor.

Hopefully it’s as interesting as it sounds… Check it out.

Real-time anything is really hard to achieve – so it would be interesting to see whether it is really real-time or near real-time or as real-time as you should expect it to be and no more.

Abcoautomation has a post up on How Supply Chain Optimization can help you beat your competition. Except that, the sort of optimization that is referred to there is not Optimization. I suppose that I have to start making a distinction between Big “O” optimization and small “o” optimization. However, that is a topic for another day. The topic for today however is two fold – Ernst Haeckel and the effect of Dr. Haeckel’s pithy summation on almost every and anything that we engage in. In very broad and general terms.

Ernst Haeckel, for those of us who are not likely to be avid readers, was a contemporary of Darwin (Yeah, that Darwin) championed a notion in evolutionary theory that can be summed up as, “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.” I assure you that you’re perfectly within your rights as a blog reader to switch to another page right now. It’s about to get a lot worse.

The following is the clarification of the terms: Ontogeny – the development of the form of the creature and Phylogeny – the location of the creature in the general scheme of evolutionary descent. Dr. Haeckel proposed (hypothetical creatures, drawings etc al), that Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny, which is to say that creatures in development exhibit developmental characteristics associated with creatures situated earlier in its evolutionary descent. This was quite an assertion which however in time turned out to be entirely wrong.

The surprising thing is that while “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny” has little support in the natural world, something quite akin to it can be readily observed in the world of intellectual ideas and their application.

Here’s the content from the above story:

I heard a story one time about a Vice President of Distribution for a very well-known health and beauty aid manufacturer who gave this talk about when he took over as VP.  He asked what is the cash to cash cycle line for a particular brand of shampoo?

What is the time from the point where we spend money on boxes bottles or whatever you need for the shampoo and the manufacturing process to the time you get the money back from Wal-Mart (their end customer). Guess how long that process was?

Really, write it down and make a commitment you might be surprised at the answer. Well despite the fact that I’m not Vanna White, here is the answer. 47 weeks, 47 weeks of time. From the time that they bought bottles of goop, and paint and to the time they got their money back from Wal-Mart.

Now the next question he asked was this of those 47 weeks how much time do you really take to add the value process?

That is to make the product. Surprise again. 90 minutes. So out of the 47 weeks of time they only spent 90 minutes actually producing the product, and the final question how much of the corporate attention was on the 90 minutes?

The Supply Chain as an idea or the very recognition of the idea of a supply chain occurs quite later in the development of the capitalistic economy. So, quite akin to Dr. Haeckel’s formulation, this is a prime exhibit of later forms of organization and complexity recapitulating similar variances of thoughts and problems that were exhibited in earlier forms of organization. So while “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny” was the mantra of an age past, I offer that “Novel forms of organization repeat the same problems exhibited in earlier developmental eras.” Or in other words, “Ontology recapitulates teleological gaps”.

Ontology has to do with the “that which is” and in this case would be the idea of the supply chain or manufacturing or putting things together. Teleology is about the purpose or end driven action that one undertakes day in and day out. So all that the statement above is referring to is the gaps in purpose that often exist in the recapitulation of newer ontologies.

This is precisely what prompted this long winding post – You see in the article above from abcoautomation, there is the suggestion that 47 weeks of lead time can be improved such that the non-value added proportion of this lead time can be reduced. However, that can only be done to a certain point i.e. as far as there is slack capacity to drive down the lead time. However, is there really slack capacity?

My simple point is this – these are problems that has been discovered and addressed in manufacturing – sometime well and sometimes not so well. The supply chain as a newer ontology (vis a vis Manufacturing) seems to recapitulate the same gaps in purpose.

Avoiding this recapitulation and the associated costs of this recapitulation is the only free lunch available – the question is whether you even realize the free lunch offer.

This is an interview with Pierre Haren, CEO of ILOG prior to its acquisition by IBM on what decision management is and how it came to be used in various situations. A look back (and forward) at 20 years of Decision Management.

This is also my particular field of expertise and Pierre alludes to the case of the product that I work with gaining acceptance in IBM’s wafer fabrication facility in East Fishkill, NY.

We had a great moment when we were able to successfully deploy a complex mix of ILOG and IBM tools at IBM Fishkill, in what was considered the most modern and fastest changing semi-conductor plant in the world. At that time, before our acquisition by IBM, IBM was a reluctant customer. I visited the head of the plant and promised that we would install the complete system for free. He would only pay if he kept the system in operation for more than a month.

Understandably, he was skeptical that a small decision management company could improve on the work of hundreds of excellent engineers who continuously tuned the $4B plant. We deployed a system which every five minutes re-computes the optimal plan for the whole plant for the next eight hours. It combines real-time data from the MES system to rules-based processes, an optimization-based scheduler, and advanced graphics to enable the plant operators to "see the current future" for the next eight hours.

The first day’s objective was low: do no harm. Within a month, all the operators where convinced and we were paid. More important, we changed forever the balance of what computers do and what operators do in that plant.

What’s important about this confluence of components i.e. Rules Management, Optimization using CPLEX and Visualization as it used in that fab (and since then in other fabs in the world) is how such a system can be used for execution. Not planning, Not strategy. But execution on a near real time basis – that means that actual tools on the fab floor act on the recommendations produced by the decision management system which in turn sees the action of the tools and then uses that as an input in further decisions. When operators and managers assert manual control in the operation of the tools or fab in general, the system accepts that and continues without issue. So the system takes into account the dynamic nature of the fab, recomputes and proceeds. I’ve blogged about this system : FabPowerOps in earlier blog postings – take a look.

Now I’m hoping to take this to the next level, deploying a federated system of such applications that not only interact with the fab floor as well as human operators, engineers and managers but with other apps taking their inputs and working on that.

Great stuff, I assure you!!

Jean-Francois Puget is a distinguished engineer at IBM in the Optimization and Analytics practice. He has made available a slide deck about lessons learnt when selling optimization to business users. He offers his prescient views on how businesses approach the topic of optimization – worth a read.

Follow him at his own blog @ IT Best Kept Secret is Optimization.

Tags: Jean-Francois Puget, Optimization, IBM, Optimization for Business Users

Logility Inc is hosting a Webinar on September 28th on this very topic : Is your Inventory a Competitive Advantage? The write up of the webinar promises:

Every supply chain faces inventory challenges which impact the bottom-line. High inventory levels tie up working capital, and stock-outs decrease revenue. When inventory levels need to be optimized across a multi-echelon manufacturing and distribution network, the complexities become even more challenging. Inventory optimization right-sizes inventory levels, boosts competitive response and grows market share during the economic recovery.

The webinar is presented by:

Sean Willems Ph.D. Associate Professor of Operations Management, Boston University

and

Michael Martin Manager, Global Supply Planning Strategy, Stanley Black & Decker

My quick take on the subject is that neither Inventory nor Inventory Optimization (which I think will be the focus of this webinar) are competitive advantages. Competitive advantage has a very specific meaning and I’ve spent considerable time and effort delving into it. The simple reason that these actions don’t qualify as competitive advantage is that their easily duplicated across the breadth of the competitors.

For my views on Competitive Advantage and the Supply Chain:

Supply Chain Network Optimization and Competitive Advantage – Part 1

Supply Chain Network Optimization and Competitive Advantage – Part 2

1. It doesn’t scale very well – multiple statements and overlapping tool-spaces lead to conflicts that must be resolved and accounted for. Otherwise, you’d default to FIFO (First in, first out) or some other simple rule.
2. Is it the best solution available? Is it a really good solution, good solution, solution, workable solution, bad solution, very bad solution?

The first rule, on activities, states that