Weighing the Benefits of Quantities, Streaks, and Trends

People put a lot of weight on numbers, especially those that show significance in terms of accomplishment:

  1. 100 days in political office;
  2. 10,000 followers for a social media influencer;
  3. 100,000 likes for a viral post on the worldwide web;
  4. 1,000,000 units sold;
  5. 1 billion customers served by a fast-food chain.

But as much as we pay a lot of attention to quantity, we seem to pay less notice to quality.

  1. What percentage of constituents were satisfied with the politician’s performance during his 100 days in office?
  2. How frequent did followers visit the social media influencer’s website?
  3. How many likes did the viral post author get for his other posts? 
  4. How many of the 1,000,000 units sold were defect-free or without complaints from buyers?
  5. How many of the billion customers served were satisfied with the fast-food’s service? 

We seem to have it in our human nature to celebrate quantity over quality.   

Maybe it’s because quantity is easier to grasp and recognise. 

It gets complicated if we say we sold 1,000 good quality items out of 1,050 produced.  People will ask what happened with the 50 that didn’t make the cut?  We’d end up explaining what we did wrong with 50 items rather than what we did right with 1,000 items. 

It’s our nature to see the bad more than the good.  Hence, just being one-dimensional, just by citing one simple number in quantity makes our achievements more tangible and easier to brag about. 

We also like to celebrate streaks and trends.  In sports, we take pride in winning so many games in a row.  During the CoVID-19 pandemic, nations would tally how many days they had without a single infection and cite it as a reason to loosen restrictions, at least until one comes along and causes another lockdown. 

We take what we can from quantities, streaks, and trends.  But we will hesitate to appreciate ratios and quality statistics. 

We’d prefer a manufacturing plant manager report employees worked 1,000,000 hours cumulatively without an injury rather than say there was one injury out of 2,000,000 man-hours registered.  People would ask what was the injury and how and why it happened. 

Still, we should ask ourselves:  what are the benefits of reporting quantities, streaks, and trends?  Is it to boast, make us look good, and build our reputations?  Will it increase our influence resulting in something positive and tangible in return?

We sometimes focus a little too much on what’s it about for us when maybe we should be asking what good will it also be for them—the customers, the likers, the readers, and stakeholders. 

This is my 100th blog post.  Though I rather prefer the few readers who visit my site like what I wrote than how many I posted.    

About Overtimers Anonymous

Solving the Supply Chain Mystery

I once met a regional sales manager of a large consumer good company at Davao City, the biggest city on the island of Mindanao, 978 kilometres (608 miles) south of Manila, Philippines. 

As I was introduced, the RSM looked at me for a moment and smiled broadly.

“You’re a supply chain consultant?”

Before I could say “yes.”  He says: “I’ve seen marketing consultants, sales consultants, and organisational development consultants, but this is the first time I’ve ever met a supply chain consultant!”

“Welcome, welcome!”  He shook my hand vigorously.  “I hope you can help us.” 

“You see,” he continues, “the supply chain is a mystery to me.” 

“Every time I submit a customer order, I never know what happens after,” the RSM said. 

“I don’t know when stocks would arrive.  I don’t know what and which products would arrive. And I don’t know how many would arrive,” the RSM said. 

He pointed to a few shipping container vans just outside the warehouse office where we were meeting and shared: “container vans like those would just show up and I wouldn’t know what are in them.” 

“I wouldn’t know if the containers have the products I ordered.  At the end of the month, five or more containers would arrive at the same time and I wouldn’t know which container would have the products I need the most.” 

“I’d spend much of my time calling the logistics office in Manila to tell me what’s coming and when but I never get a clear answer.  I spend a lot of time following up the deliveries of products I need when I should be using the time selling to customers.”

“As this is the first time I’m meeting a supply chain consultant, maybe things can change.  Maybe you can solve the supply chain mystery!”  The RSM said.

On the surface, the problem had a straightforward answer.  The consumer goods company’s logistics office just had to share shipping schedules with the RSM to tell him what’s coming and when.  That would right there solve the problem.

The problem, however, goes deeper. 

Why isn’t logistics sharing the information in the first place? 

Why is logistics not communicating with their sales counterparts? 

And aside from logistics, are other departments even communicating with each other?  Do the consumer goods company’s executives communicate with vendors, customers, 3rd party providers, and stakeholders?  Or are they too preoccupied with other problems they consider urgent?

Communication has always been a problem with companies, especially big companies.  Departments hardly talk to each other as they pursue pre-set goals or put out fires within their work boundaries.  If there would be any communication, it would be in the form of phone calls, memos, reports, or hours-long meetings.

Communication in the management sense, however, does not consist of meetings, memos, or phone calls.  Communication in the management sense is about rapport, i.e., active two-way connection between boss and subordinate, between peers, and between people from differing departments and separate enterprises. 

Communication enhances the flow of information in which individuals and groups constantly share pertinent important information with the purpose of meeting communal objectives for the mutual benefit of all concerned. 

So why aren’t companies doing that?  What’s the problem?  Why does a consumer goods regional sales manager have trouble getting in touch with people he sends orders to and waits for deliveries from? 

Communications within and between enterprises require support structures and systems.  Many companies, however, don’t have adequate structures and systems.  This is because these companies have been brought up on a culture of silos, in which managers and employees work in places that have goals and targets of their own. 

In the consumer goods company where the RSM works, there are performance measures and strategies assigned for every department: 

  • Finance seeks higher profits, more cash-flow, and higher rates of returns;
  • Marketing wants brand leadership, strong geographic distribution, and positive consumer acceptance;
  • Sales wants higher turnover, record-breaking selling volumes, and a high level of retail presence;
  • Manufacturing wants continuous uninterrupted production;
  • Logistics wants fewer pending orders and lower freight costs;
  • Purchasing prefers bulk purchases with large discounts on prices.

The consumer goods company’s organisational chart shows a hierarchy of managers and employees working in different functions with different scopes of work each with specific roles and goals.  The chart in itself lays out a plan of silos where individuals and groups work separately.

Separation means differences in priorities and interests.  What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours.  Each to our own.  I mind my business; you mind yours.  These become the thoughts of people within the company. 

What more for those who are not from the company.  We’re inside; they’re outside.  Enterprises might as well be islands in an ocean and many are just like that. 

Organisational development trainers and executives have recommended and implemented many ideas to bring people within and even between enterprises together.  They’ve introduced radical solutions such as “flat” org structures that eliminate many layers of authority and they have encouraged “campus” work ethics where individuals from different disciplines work together in open-plan shared work spaces. 

The consumer goods company the RSM worked for had “brand teams” which had marketing managers lead groups consisting of representatives from sales, manufacturing, finance, and R&D.  The brand team would “own” a particular brand of the company and be accountable for its success.  It was a way to break down barriers between functions. 

Unfortunately, these OD and brand team initiatives have only shown limited success.   At the end of the day, the functional employees and their managers go back to their familiar places of work and focus on the priorities of their departments.  The gates of their workplaces close once again as they resume pursuing their own urgent individual targets.   

Supply chains offer a way out of silos.  Supply chains are grounded on relationships.  Relationships, in order for them to prosper, require communication. 

In supply chains, operating functions work with each other to transform and move materials and merchandise from one point to another, one process to the next, one step at a time.  Connections and communications are what makes a supply chain tick.  And for a supply chain to work, it must tick with every part in clockwork synchronicity. 

When the RSM doesn’t know what’s coming and when, the communications and connections aren’t working.  The supply chain link from the transportation of the product to the receiving warehouse is broken.  The supply chain in this sense is not working. 

Hence, the first thing I urged for the consumer goods company is communication.  Fix the link, establish the connection, make active the communication not only between logistics and the regional sales manager, but also between logistics and other RSMs, logistics and transportation providers, manufacturing and logistics, the inventory planners and logistics, manufacturing and inventory planners and logistics, purchasing to planners to manufacturing, purchasing to vendors. 

There has to be rapport.  Not memos.  Not meetings. Not once-a-month reports.  Not emails or text messages.  But active two-way communication of shared information, shared planning, shared direction, and shared implementation. 

It doesn’t take a world-class detective to solve the supply chain mystery.  Just taking the initiative to communicate would provide much of an answer.

About Overtimers Anonymous

We Need Better Monitoring Systems

Most executives like performance measures.  Otherwise known as metrics, key performance indicators (KPI’s), analytics, or scorecards, enterprises embrace performance measures as a means to assess how their businesses are doing.

The point of a performance measure is to check how an individual or team is doing against a target that is set by superiors.  (No matter what people may say, it’s always the superior who sets the targets).  Targets are set in line with strategic goals.  Individuals and teams strive to perform such that resulting measures would meet targets to attain the goals. 

But after more than twenty (20) long years since they’ve become popular, performance measures are no longer good enough, especially for supply chains. 

Supply chains are product and service streams.  Materials, merchandise, and information (printed and digital) flow through networks within and between enterprises.  From one operational step to the next, products and services transcend in value as they make their way to their final destinations: the end users.

Supply chains are sensitive to disruption.  When a disruption hits one process, every part of the supply chain feels it.  A delay in the loading of a truck, for instance, may entail a change in production schedules at a manufacturing facility it is supposed to deliver to, which in turn may cause a shortage of a product the facility is supposed to make. 

Performance measures are popular as many people could relate to them.  They are simple and easy to appreciate.  They show how a person’s work is doing versus a target that fits to that person’s tasks.  The performance target would be linked to higher levels of performance measures that would finally connect to a strategic goal. 

Unfortunately, performance measures do not work very well when there are disruptions.  Whereas they are designed such that different levels of an organisation can be made accountable for them, performance measures are not flexible to changing circumstances.  

For example, a production line supervisor is accountable for how many overtime hours his crew works in a week.  His target is that each crew member does not work more than 4 out of 40 hours of overtime per week.  He controls the overtime by rotating his crew members’ leaves such that not many of them have days off at the same time.  But if the supervisor receives a surprise rush order such that he has to make double his weekly volume, he would be forced to ask his crew to go on overtime to meet that order.  His boss, however, would ask him later to explain why he exceeded his weekly overtime target. 

Disruptions are nothing new for supply chains.  They can be big or small.  They are the results of both adversities and opportunities  And they can come periodically or frequently.  They are never identical in cause and they sometimes come in the most mundane manner, like a surprise doubling of a production order such as in the example mentioned above

Performance measures work when supply chains run routinely, much like in a game of sports.  Sports games operate under fixed sets of rules and conditions.  Players score and meet goals to win. But if it rains, the game stops.  In similar fashion, supply chain professionals perform to achieve objectives set by schedules under favourable and predictable working conditions.  But if someone changes the schedule or everyone has to go home because of a disruption like a virus-causing government-mandated lock-down, the performance measures become useless. 

Disruptions are normal.  They aren’t exceptions.  Disruptions occur often as a result of frequent adversities and opportunities that ripple through the fast-paced interconnected world we live in.

What supply chains need are monitoring systems that tell us not only what is going on but also notify us when there is a need to respond.  We need monitoring systems that will tell us about upcoming disruptions and give us time to take action.             

Two things comprise a monitoring system:   visibility and guidance.  Visibility in the form of real-time information and guidance in the form of alerts to events that merit a response. 

An example is a fuel gauge in a car.  The gauge provides visibility on how much fuel is there in a tank.  It also gives guidance via a flashing light that alerts the driver that the fuel tank is almost empty. 

Monitoring systems are not new to supply chains.  Manufacturing managers harness instruments and gauges to monitor production lines and facilitate process control.  A number of enterprises have adopted technologies such as radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, block-chains, and artificially intelligent command-and-control systems to oversee supply chains even from long distances.   

Many enterprises, however, have had little success in mitigating disruption in their supply chains despite the growth of high-tech monitoring systems.  This is because many monitoring systems aren’t focused towards disruption.  Instead, they are geared towards performance for the sake of measuring results versus strategic goals, which as aforementioned don’t really contribute very much in a frequently disruptive environment. 

We, therefore, need to re-orient supply chains towards monitoring for disruption, not performance.  By watching out for disruption and responding to it, supply chains would be able to muster resources to mitigate it, even perhaps take advantage of it. 

One doesn’t have to start with an intricate, complicated or expensive system.  One can begin with simple reports from various operations along the chain.  For instance, vendors, brokerages firms, and shipping companies can email the status of orders for imported materials. 

Import status report

A status report such as the one above can tell stakeholders about impending issues such as a shipment that’s about to be considered abandoned and subject to penalties.

Supply chain engineers can make improvements step-by-step by tailoring feedback systems to fit different processes.  SMS texts summarising daily customer orders, entered orders in the database, communicated factory orders, MRP II real-time plans are examples.     

      

A supply chain monitoring system can also be like a tsunami warning system: 

Or it can be manifested like a dashboard for supply chain professionals to see:

Whatever the design, the purpose of the monitoring system is to allow stakeholders to watch out for disruption and respond when needed. 

Performance measures have not proven to be helpful in our disruptive-driven world.  We need monitoring systems that provide visibility and guidance especially for supply chains.  They don’t have to be complicated; they just have to be adequate enough to bring attention to disruptions.

Disruptions are a result of both adversity and opportunity.  In either case, it’s always best to be one step ahead whether it be to mitigate or to take advantage of whatever’s out there.