When Increasing Capacity Becomes a Priority

One Sunday morning, a homeless woman at a traffic intersection was approaching cars and begging for alms.  Some drivers give but most don’t.  But the woman persists anyway; she shows a sign saying she’s homeless and asks for money for food. 

I thought as I observed the homeless woman:  if the government could spend so much setting up facilities to quarantine patients infected with the CoVID-19 virus, couldn’t it also spend a little more to house the homeless who roam the streets?  At least the government could provide a place to sleep and some food and water to homeless people even for a brief time so they’d be able to find work or resolve whatever issue that brought them there in the first place? 

The frequent answer to such a suggestion is a lack of resources.  The government would say they don’t have the budget to provide such for homeless people. 

How then were they able to provide for CoVID-19 infected people?  That’s different, a government person may say.  It was a national emergency and the virus is dangerous and life-threatening. 

But isn’t being homeless and without food dangerous and life-threatening too? And at this point, the government would not pursue the argument.  With a wave of a hand, they’d just say there is no justification to provide the resources. 

Not only governments but also enterprises hesitate to provide resources even when the demand would be there.  Executives would cite limitations in budgets or capital.  They would prefer that the operations spearheading supply reach their points of maximum capacities before asking for any investment in additional capacities. 

And even if they are at that point of maximum utilisation, executives would require proof that operations are also at their highest efficiencies.  Executives by common practice, will want an organisation to exhaust all of its means before considering any investment in additional capacities. 

If executives can avoid investing in new capacities, they will.     

This is why factories run flat-out to supply products before companies realise they need to build new production lines.  This is why airlines wait until flights are overbooked or ticket counters turn away passengers before they add new planes to their fleets.  This is why some restaurants don’t expand their dining areas or hire new staff until they see patrons waiting for tables or walking away because they couldn’t get a waiter to serve them.    And this is why internet companies don’t install new equipment until they see slowdowns in downloading speed or backlogs of subscribers. 

It doesn’t occur to many enterprises that investments in additional resources should ideally happen before operating limits are reached. 

At the height of the CoVID-19 pandemic in New York City, USA, in late March of 2020, the US Navy dispatched the USNS hospital ship, Comfort, to assist the city’s medical services. 

New York was low on available beds and staff to treat a surge of CoVID-19 patients.  New York City welcomed the Comfort, with its 1,000 beds and trained medical staff.   

But instead of helping, the Comfort would only take non-CoVID-19 patients.  The US Navy thought that by taking in patients not infected by the virus, New York could free up space in their hospitals for the CoVID-19 patients.  The Comfort’s beds were also spaced closely side by side so in the first place, the ship could not enforce social distancing for CoVID-19 patients.

The Comfort ended up treating 20 patients at its first week as New York’s hospitals continued to struggle with crowded wards and weary staff.  After so many weeks of sitting idly by hardly utilised, the Comfort departed New York City. 

The story of the Comfort was a lesson for leaders, if not an eye-opener for executives.  One should not wait till an issue becomes extremely urgent before acting.  

But nobody did learn.  Nobody did realise.  Many executives of governments and enterprises have forgotten the story of the Comfort. It has been relegated as one more passing tale of the pandemic era.  Meanwhile, wave after wave of virus infections months after the story of the Comfort have led to overcrowded hospitals and more deaths due to patients unable to be admitted for treatment.   

We shouldn’t wait till the last minute before deciding we need more capacity.  It isn’t complicated to calculate how much more we need if we can see the rate of  growing demand and anticipate when our resources will no longer be enough. 

I gave money to the homeless woman that day but I saw more homeless people begging on the street corners the weeks afterward. 

We still haven’t learned. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Supply Chains Must Have These Five (5) Traits

What’s all the fuss about supply chains?

An Evergreen container ship, the Ever Given, got stuck at the Suez Canal in late March 2021.  The solution was simple:  dig out the sand it’s grounded on and tow the ship to a nearby lake.  Unfortunately, because it’s a big heavy ship and the Suez Canal is a narrow shipping lane between Asia and Europe, a traffic jam of vessels ensued at both ends of the canal. 

The media jumped on the Ever Given’s predicament and soon enough, it became a global talk-of-the-town.  Supply chains became a hot topic as media analysts speculated on shortages of merchandise as container cargo ship arrivals were delayed due to the logjam. 

The Ever Given’s saga at the Suez Canal riveted the world.  It created so much buzz that weeks after the ship finally was freed, people were still talking about it and more so about supply chains. 

One stuck ship had created so much fuss.

Supply chains have been the focus of media attention since countries started locking down their cities and territories at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. 

At first, media reported shortages in food, personal protective equipment (PPE), and supplies.  Then there were the reports about transportation bottlenecks in air and sea freight due to restrictions at borders and ports. 

More than a year later, by March 2021, the news shifted toward cargo congestions at North American ports, spiking consumer demand, shortfalls in semiconductor chips leading to automotive factory shutdowns, and the lack of available shipping containers as international trade picked up

And as vaccines became available, just about every so-called expert raised the spectre of not enough injections for everyone due to weaknesses in global supply chains.

But is all the fuss pointing to real problems in supply chains?  Or are they just exaggerations exacerbated by media and analysts seeking attention?

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted just about every enterprise on Earth.

  • Many saw the emptied grocery shelves and many more waited in long lines to buy medicines and toiletries. 
  • Farmers threw away vegetables and poultry business owners cut production as inventories grew and demand fell.  There was plenty of food available in 2020 and then there were the shortages, particularly meat, in 2021; 
  • It wasn’t easy for some of us to find spare parts for fixing our cars, trucks, or motorcycles.  This was especially true as some car dealers and shops closed due to lockdown restrictions. 

We realised how fragile product supply chains can be in the era of the pandemic.  And as a result, we have seen the supply chain landscape changing before our very eyes.

So, yes, there are real problems in supply chains and no, the media weren’t exaggerating about those problems. 

The Ever Given wasn’t a wake-up call but the media attention is.  Supply chains need to be managed in a different light after all the disruptions enterprises have experienced. 

Where do we start? 

I recommend identifying what traits a supply chain should have:

  • They need to be proactive especially when it comes to demand.  Demand is a primary driver of supply chain flow and if it was already hard to predict what customers will buy, it was even more so during the pandemic and likely stay that way in the post-pandemic eras.  Supply chain professionals need to be at least one step ahead in anticipating, capturing, and cultivating demand in the planning and execution of customer fulfilment services. 
  • Many executives believe supply chains need to build in resilience.  Resilience is the ability to recover from difficulties—to spring back into shape after a shock.  I don’t fully agree.  Resilience implies that enterprises roll with the punches of disruptions, taking in hits and then healing afterward.  In my opinion, enterprise supply chains should learn to parry; they should build in resistance to whatever a bad disruption may bring.   Supply chains therefore should be versatile.  Enterprises shouldn’t just be ready to adapt or resist disruption; they should also be ready to initiate disruption.  And what does an enterprise need to manifest that?  Versatility
  • Supply chains must be productive.  Productive not as in efficient but as in performing effectively towards meeting and exceeding enterprise goals and strategies.  Supply chains are not generic.  Though they may share common standards such as service, cost, and quality, the extent of how each individual supply chain performs depends on the mission of the enterprise each works with. 
  • Supply chains need to be organised.  This is not just about having a structure that puts functions like purchasing, manufacturing, and logistics under one roof.  It’s also about having unified systems that connect and encourage vendors, enterprises, and customers to collaborate to a common cause.  
  • And last but not least, supply chains must be sustainable.  No, not the environment-friendly kind of sustainable but the type in which an enterprise can count on its supply chain for a perpetually reliable supply of resources, such as products, materials, components, energy, human resources, and/or working capital. 

Note that I didn’t mention digital as a needed trait.  As of now, I don’t see it is a needed trait despite what many may say.  Yes, it’s a whole new world and a whole new normal with e-commerce more dominant than ever and with technologies trending towards artificial intelligence, blockchains, and cryptocurrencies.  But as much as they will be hard to ignore in the near future, supply chains don’t need to be digital as a trait.  Supply chains would need to go digital as a means—a means towards being proactive with demand, versatile, productive, organised, and sustainable

About Overtimers Anonymous

Why We Need to Build Supply Chains

Enterprises are planning to rebuild their supply chains in the wake of the pandemic of 2020. 

Well, no, not really. 

Many enterprises are planning to resume production and boost inventories in the aftermath of the COVID19 pandemic.1 Some firms will narrow their product lines to those that are in high demand (e.g. toilet paper).  Others will stock up on raw materials and seek vendors that are nearer to their production sites as alternatives to risky international sources.

Not many firms, however, plan to build or rebuild supply chains.  I don’t blame them. 

Building a supply chain is not an attractive option, at least at first glance.  Most enterprises work within existing supply chains and would not outright see a good reason to build one that overlaps with other organisations. 

Enterprises would likely focus internally in their own operations if there’s any supply chain building that needs to be done.  And even then, enterprise executives would hesitate to do any major change if they perceive it would entail too much work and cost that wouldn’t reap much beneficial return.

Some companies in the past did try to rebuild their supply chains.  They called it “re-engineering” and it was popular in the 1990’s.  The idea was to redesign business operations from scratch and then apply sweeping changes to existing operations. 

It didn’t last long.2 Many companies ended up downsizing instead of changing.  A lot of people lost their jobs and companies didn’t realize much of any reward.  Re-engineering quickly lost its luster as fast as it was introduced. 

Some consultants, academics, and information technology (IT) vendors still push for re-engineering though they avoid the term.  Some pitch IT platforms such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) to drive operations improvements.3 Alas, ERP and other similar platforms have not been as successful as hoped.   Many projects have fallen to the wayside

Many enterprises took to managing supply chains than into re-engineering them.  They sought talented people who’d know how to regulate inventories, negotiate with vendors, process orders, and make sure operations would comply with the latest environmental sustainability rules and occupational safety & health guidelines.  Executives also placed hopes that supply chain managers can lead in implementing new technologies such as artificial intelligence.  Supply chain management had become the norm.  Re-engineering was forgotten. 

Then the pandemic came. 

Enterprise executives know that supply chains need to change in the aftermath of COVID19.  And it isn’t just because of COVID19.  Before that, it was the tariff war between the United States and China that turned global trade upside down, not to mention similar disputes such as the British exit (Brexit) from the European Union.  There were also the supply and price fluctuations in commodities from metals, rare earths, to crude oil.  There were also the natural disasters. There were also the cyber-security data breaches.  And there were also the numerous upstart entrepreneurs who were introducing technologies such as drones, ride-sharing, video-streaming, and ecommerce mobile apps that threatened traditional businesses. 

Enterprises had to accept: supply chains, especially the global ones, were vulnerable.  They don’t work well in a disruptive environment.  The pandemic proved it.  All one had to see were the idle factories, closed warehouses, shut stores, and empty shelves.  The present supply chain set-up no longer applies. 

Building supply chains isn’t really that hard and expensive.  Sure, it requires investment but just like supply chain management, the key is talent.  One just has to employ the right people with the right talent.  The good news is that the talent is there in front of us, ready to work and available.  They are the industrial engineers; they have the tools and the skills and whom I’d rather call supply chain engineers.   

It’s not management but engineering that would drive the building of supply chains.  Engineers build things.  That’s their role.  Managers don’t do building; that’s not their role. 

The process of building supply chains is not too far off from constructing a factory or warehouse.  One has to have a plan, a timeline, and a full list of resources and costs.  And one has to have a engineer with the expertise and leadership to design and oversee. 

The difference lies in the nature and scope.  Whereas a facility such as an office and warehouse lies within the bounds of an enterprise, a supply chain encompasses the stream of products and services that crosses organisations and borders. 

A supply chain is like a river.  Build a dam and that’s a facility at a point in the river, with the purpose of harnessing the river’s water.   Building the supply chain involves setting up systems and facilities along the river to ensure the continuous and sustainable flow of water from start to finish. 

The supply chain engineer works not only with stakeholders within the enterprise but with stakeholders from other enterprises, such as but not limited to vendors and customers.  The engineer identifies and designs what needs to be built along the supply chain river. 

Most of what would be built first would likely be the networks and systems that link along the supply chain stream*.  The engineer would seek the optimal design that would synchronise and sustain flow that would uphold competitive standards of reliability, quality, and versatility. 

The 2020 pandemic is the latest in the series of 21st century disruptions to supply chains. It was the worst and it won’t be the last.  Enterprises who realize that their supply chains are vulnerable and need to be built with engineering talent would be on the right track to reviving their competitive edge.  

*Note:  I wrote a similar blog in LinkedIn in July 2019 in which I stressed structures in supply chain building. 

A Letter to All Industrial Engineers: Time to Rise Up

Dear Industrial Engineer:

          I come to you as a fellow Industrial Engineer (IE) with a message.

          It’s time for us to rise up.

          For years, or should I say decades, Industrial Engineering (IE) has been an un-recognized engineering discipline. 

          Many engineers—e.g. civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical—look at us as fakes. 

          Industrial Engineers (IEs) aren’t recognized as technically proficient builders or problem solvers at par with other engineering disciplines.  Even if many of us have professional licenses issued from places like the United States and Europe, we are not respected in many parts of the world.

          Most enterprises and organisations see us as more of management professionals than engineers.  They perceive the specialized courses we take, such as time & motion studies, operations research (OR), facilities planning and inventory systems modelling, as management subjects than technical specializations.  This is despite the fact that we are educated in advanced mathematics and sciences such as calculus, chemistry, and physics, and in engineering courses such as statics & dynamics, materials science, and electrical systems. 

          We are competent in reading and drafting engineering drawings and many of us know how to operate equipment like lathes, drills, presses, and milling machines.  We specialize in advanced statistical models such as linear/non-linear programming, queuing theory, and transportation algorithms. 

          Despite our engineering prowess, very few understand what IEs do.  We ourselves don’t have a clear picture of what Industrial Engineering is.  We’re always finding ourselves struggling to explain what IE is to our peers, co-workers, friends, and fellow family members. 

          The problem is with the title itself.  What does the “Industrial” in Industrial Engineer mean anyway? 

          People know what a civil, chemical, mechanical, or electrical engineer is just by the titles.  But with Industrial Engineer, we have to explain it and most, if not we, still wouldn’t get it. 

          True, many of us IEs, thanks to our training and experience, have successful careers.  Many of us have become top-notch executives and well-off entrepreneurs. 

          It would be nice, however, if we could just have a little more recognition and apply what we know as IEs.  And this is exactly what this letter is all about. 

          We are in the midst of the worst crisis to hit the globe since World War II.  The COVID-19 disease has ravaged communities and brought economies to a standstill.  Enterprises and individuals have lost earnings and incomes as people get sick or are forced to stay home.  Many products are in short supply as manufacturing and logistics facilities have become undermanned or short of materials.  Border closings have delayed or stopped deliveries altogether. 

COVID-19 is the latest and the worst in a series of adversities that has befallen supply chains.  It isn’t the first and it will not be the last.

          Year after year, adversities ranging from natural disasters, cyber-data malware, and trade tariffs have made life difficult for supply chains.  From the September 11, 2001 terror attacks to the climate change crisis, adversities have been buffeting businesses and societies.  They come small but frequently (as in daily traffic jams) or big and infrequently (such as typhoons).   They can come in the form of interruptions (e.g. power failure) or as a man-made business trend (e.g. a new mobile app that makes obsolete traditional package deliveries). 

          As supply chains have become global and more sophisticated, they have become more and more sensitive to adversities.  The challenge to supply chain productivity, and to enterprise survival, is very real. 

          We as IEs are in the best position to deal with adversities.  We have the expertise, the talent, and the tools. 

          For example, amid the crisis of COVID-19, we as IEs can help hospitals reduce wait times for patients via our knowledge of Operations Research (OR).  We can set up forecasting and inventory models to assist hospitals to avoid out-of-stock incidences for medical equipment and supplies.  We can help in improving schedules and reducing wastage in medicines and supplies. 

          When it comes to supply chains, we have the capabilities to analyse and improve the flow processes of materials and merchandise.  We are the experts in optimizing methods and in boosting the productivity of supply chain operations. 

          Before anything else, however, we need to upgrade our identity.  We should stop calling ourselves Industrial Engineers.  It’s too vague. 

          We should instead start calling ourselves Supply Chain Engineers.  Just as with other engineering titles, we need to be recognized quickly for what we do by what we call ourselves.   

          Because supply chains are at the core of global business, it’s time we see ourselves as Supply Chain Engineers.  We can build them, we can improve on them, and we can make them risk-averse and world class. 

          We have evolved and we should continue to do so.  Industrial Engineer as a title belongs to a time when manufacturing was prominent.  Today in the 21st century, supply chains are prominent.  Whether it be in products or services, there will be supply chains.  And we have the means, the skills, and the talent that earns us the title as Supply Chain Engineers. 

          The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerability of supply chains.  It also has demonstrated the potential value of our vocation as Supply Chain Engineers. 

          We have the ability to change the world for the better.   We are Supply Chain Engineers.   We can make supply chains resistant to present and future adversities and deliver world-class productivity to the enterprise. 

          We have the power and we have the responsibility to demonstrate that power.

          Let’s show them what we got.    

About Overtimers Anonymous

The World Needs Supply Chain Engineers

Not leaders.  Not managers.  Not business executives.  We have plenty of leaders, both real and wannabes.  Managers and executives too; we have enough. 

We need supply chain engineers. 

The global supply chain is a present-day 21st-century reality.  We get much of our goods from all over the world.  We buy shoes from Europe to sell in America.  We ship rice to Australia and import minerals in return.  We travel to trade and we negotiate with our tablets and mobile phones. 

E-commerce has expanded the reach of supply chains.  We order and pay via the Internet.  More and more enterprises deliver door-to-door, business-to-business, person-to-person.  Transportation’s new normal is multi-modal: airplane-to-van, van-to-vessel, vessel-to-truck, truck-to-motorcycle.  Ordinary people ferry food and merchandise to homes as much as courier companies deliver packages to businesses. 

There is so much room for improvement that supply chain management has become a high-profile career choice.  But this is not a promotional message for supply chain management; this is a call for action.  Supply chains are facing challenging adversities and supply chain management, as is, is no longer capable to deal with them. 

Supply chain engineering is the “application of scientific and mathematical principles” for the design and synchronization of highly complex supply chain operations.  It is a field the world needs to synchronize supply chain operations and networks.    

It’s not only because supply chains have so much room for improvement.  It’s also because adversities have become too significant to ignore.  The adversities, which some may classify as supply chain risks, are real. 

Adversities in recent years have caused plenty of pain to supply chains.  They’ve disrupted transport, caused shortages of critical raw materials, and brought widespread inefficiencies.  As much as they’ve been manageable, the adversities are not getting any fewer.  In fact, they’re getting more disruptive and threatening.  To an extent, they can shut down supply chains and cause not only economic failure but also society chaos.  The most prominent example of this is the COVID19 virus pandemic. 

Just as we need doctors to deal with disease, we need engineers to deal with supply chain disruption.  Management as a profession and talent is no longer enough because management is only about planning, organising, directing, and controlling.  We need engineering, that is, we need to have people with skills to design and install systems, networks, and methods to synchronize and integrate the various supply chain operations and make them adversity-resistant. 

We need problem solvers that can define problems before they happen.  Anticipating adversity and mitigating it, if not overcoming it, are the key tasks of the supply chain engineer. 

Where can we find supply chain engineers? 

They’re closer than you think

Where are the Supply Chain Experts?

Supply chain managers are noticeably invisible amid the COVID-19 crisis.

There have been no supply chain executives standing beside national leaders as they made speeches and announcements.

There have been rarely any interviews with supply chain experts about how to deal with shortages of food and difficulties in transportation.  If there were, much of whatever was said had been largely ignored.  

A lot of people have viewed the coronavirus disease, COVID-19, as a medical problem requiring a medical solution, i.e., hospitalization, quarantine, finding a cure.  As much as it is a medical issue, it is more of a problem that needs a social solution. Such a solution needs four (4) things:

  1. convincing everyone to re-align their lifestyles to that of good hygiene, sanitation, avoidance of unnecessary travel & physical contact, and healthy living;
  2. rapid segregation and isolation of suspected infected individuals;
  3. boosting capacities of facilities and mobilization of medical personnel;
  4. synchronising supply chains to stockpile and deliver inventories of essential items such as medical equipment, parts, supplies, food, water, fuel, and other essential goods.

Many countries did the first two, (a) & (b), many are scrambling with difficulty to do (c), and as for (d), it has been a nightmare of shortages and desperation. 

Supply chains are overwhelmed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.  Business firms and organisations are fending for themselves.  There is no united front, no coalitions formed.  There is no high-profile leadership to rally the logistics and manufacturing industries.  Countries aren’t cooperating with each other; how could one therefore expect enterprises to do the same? 

Despite the strides in bringing supply chain talent to corporate board rooms, many executives both in business and government have not engaged the supply chain professionals in the fight versus COVID-19.  Instead, the supply chain experts are relegated to the side-lines, sweating away somewhere untying bottlenecks and moving merchandise as fast as they can to where they are needed the most.   

Many enterprises only see supply chains as networks working within the boundaries of their respective businesses and not as continuous lines of flow of materials and merchandise that cross from one enterprise to another as they accumulate in value from one point to the next: from mines & farms, to factories & warehouses, to stores & e-commerce cross-docks, and finally to users & consumers. 

As much as executives may justify confining supply chain management within imaginary boundaries as a means to foster their respective enterprises’ competitive advantages, there is great potential in designing supply chain systems and networks that synchronise the streams of products, information, and capital from the sources to customer’s shelves. 

This is made more apparent with supply chains becoming more vulnerable to adversities such as COVID-19. 

Adversities are those that disrupt the routines and flows of operations, particularly supply chains.  Adversities come in different forms, degrees, shapes, and sizes.  They are never the same from one to the next (similar, maybe, like with typhoons but different in that typhoons never follow the exact same path with the exact same intensity of wind & rain).

Because supply chains have stretched themselves to the four corners of the world, they have become more susceptible to varying adversities.  Global supply chains are spread thin; their links ever more sensitive to disruption and change.

As supply chains have become global, supply chain management, however, has remained local.  As mentioned, enterprise owners are reluctant to collaborate and link with vendors and customers for fear of compromising their competitive positions.  Hence, there’s no overall organized effort to synchronize because there’s no strategy or structure for such in the first place. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that supply chains can’t function productively without synchronisation.  And it has also shown that societies suffer when supply chains become adversely unproductive. 

How do we synchronise supply chains to make them if not keep them productive? 

The answer is not in management.  It’s in engineering

We Need a Playbook and It’s the Last Thing We Need

Many enterprises and countries around the world have playbooks to deal with pandemics such as COVID-19.  These range from ISO standards and those based on the United States’ Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), Center of Disease Control & Prevention, and even the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USARMIID).   

But as much as present-day playbooks may have protocols for pandemics, they don’t have any for supply chains.  Enterprises and governments may have response plans such as quarantines and allocations of resources for medical facilities & personnel; there wouldn’t be any, however, for cross-border supply chains.

Why is that?  Because global supply chains have become prominent only in recent years.  Governments and many enterprises still manage supply chains as if they exist only within their borders and factories. 

Global supply chain relationships are mostly in the form of contracts with vendors and 3rd party providers.  Most of the links, from the sources, to the transportation, to the storage & deliveries are siloed, that is, they’re autonomous and overseen separately.  Collaborations and interactions are mostly done between individual representatives such as between sales agents and purchasing personnel. 

With no real connection, there is no protocol, and therefore no synchronisation that can overcome widespread disruptions from adversities such as what has happened from COVID-19.  Every link on the supply chain is actually vulnerable to whatever form of adversity, more so a global pandemic.

If enterprises can synchronise (some people call it integrate) their supply chains, then there would be a united front versus any adversities.  Enterprises would be able to adapt together.  Goods would keep moving.  People will get their products.  Economies would remain stable.    

Playbook protocols and procedures, however, are the last thing supply chains need.  Synchronising supply chains requires several things first: 

  1. Management commitment;
  2. Establishing comprehensive policies and strategies;
  3. Setting objectives and performance measures;
  4. Designing structures and systems to support the strategy;

Many enterprises have embraced (1), (2), and (3).  Many have not been fully successful with (4).  This is because many enterprises have trouble finding the talent to do (4). 

Doing (4) is an engineering effort.  It requires talent that will be sought for because before enterprises can sync their supply chains, they’ll need to engineer their networks to establish the links. 

Only then can enterprises rewrite their playbooks and prepare for the next pandemic and whatever adversity that comes their way. 

Why Weren’t We Ready for COVID-19 and How Should We Have Been?

The COVID-19 disease is the latest adversity to hit our world and it’s the worst yet.  It also should be the last in how we deal with adversity because how we’ve been dealing with adversity has just been outright awful.   

COVID-19 started late December 2019 in China and had spread around the world three (3) months later.  People got sick, nations closed borders, supply chains stopped moving, and businesses slowed if not closed shut. 

Many organisations had no playbook, protocol. or contingency plan, to deal with COVID-19.  Many measures taken were akin to knee-jerk reactions.  We just weren’t ready.  And we should have been. 

Adversities are part and parcel of enterprises and society.  We encounter them all the time.  From natural disasters to daily traffic, adversities come in all scales, shapes and sizes.  And they always differ one day to the next. 

Organisations develop risk management strategies to combat adversities.  Risk management just has not been effective, however, as many organisations don’t treat risks as high-profile priorities, that is, risks are considered important only when they turn into threats or problems. 

For instance, a company would invest in fire safety equipment and delegate a safety officer to monitor compliance to prevent fires.  But executives would prioritize reports and presentations on issues such as sales, costs, and customer service.  Managers wouldn’t ask about fire safety reports unless there was a fire. 

Risk management also has traditionally been limited in scope such as to security, safety, and secrecy.  It wouldn’t include adversities such as unexpected price increases in commodities, sudden imposition of tariffs, the surprise inability to collect from a customer, and diseases—these would be the responsibilities of respectively different departments and they wouldn’t even be called risks. 

The COVID-19 pandemic offers us the lesson that what we’ve been doing in terms of adversity mitigation has simply just not been enough.  We need to change how we anticipate and mitigate adversity.  We should start by saying that it is not risk management but adversity management, that is, we treat adversity with wider ranging scope and priority. 

It requires a change in mindset.  Adversity is not risk.  It’s a whole different category that encompasses risk.  We need to realize we have become more vulnerable to it.  How we’ve dealt with it in the past and with COVID-19 hasn’t been the right way; we need to formulate a new right way. 

If we didn’t get sick from COVID-19, we should at least be sick and tired of how we responded to it and to all the adversities beforehand.  We need a new approach, because not only can we will be able to save lives, we will be able to save our livelihoods.