Supply chain managers are often called upon to lead major change initiatives. But are we doing a good job teaching them the skills they need? Here are four techniques that could help.
Bruce C. Arntzen is the executive director of the supply chain management program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Transportation & Logistics.
When students graduate from top universities with a master of supply chain management or master of business administration (MBA) degree, they typically command a very high salary. And in our experience, hiring managers have equally high expectations. They want a "change maker," not just another cog in the organizational machine. Top graduates often get hired into a headquarters group, such as a "center of excellence," that focuses on driving best practices across the company. Similarly, if they are hired as a functional manager, they are expected to improve the process, not just run it. Even before they arrive, new hires are expected to be the rising star, to "go make change happen!"
But that's often easier said than done. Because the supply chain straddles facilities across the globe and is affected by almost every other function in the company, it is both the best place to make change happen and a tough place to make change happen. Bad business practices in those other functions cause poor performance especially in the supply chain. For example, engineers use custom-made, unique components in product designs. Marketing loves stock-keeping unit (SKU) proliferation. Sales piles up orders in the last three days of the quarter. Manufacturing wants 100-percent machine utilization. Planners love spreadsheets and shun enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. All of these practices can lead to an unoptimized supply chain. Furthermore different functions often have conflicting motivations and, of course, everyone has inertia, or a reluctance to change and adopt new ideas.
Other barriers to change exist in the corporate structure. In a multinational corporation, there is conflict between headquarters/centers of excellence and big divisions. There are many cultures, many functions, and many types of people. Many employees are not engineers or quantitatively focused business people, but are driven more by emotions, feelings, habits, attitudes, and tradition. Finally, in any large organization, there are many improvement programs and change initiatives all competing for support and resources.
So, top graduates are typically expected to "go make change happen" but without any funding, staff, or authority and among all types of people who they have never met before. Moreover, the divisions and remote sites really don't want a "youngster" from headquarters coming to tell them what to do.Â
It's a tough challenge, and to stand a chance of meeting it, graduates at least need to be equipped with skills and knowledge they learned at college or in corporate training programs that can help them to perform as leaders. Invariably, however, this is not the case.
Classrooms fall short
Every business-focused master's degree and MBA program teaches leadership in at least one course. And many corporations also provide internal leadership training for their best and brightest. But given the wide variety of leadership scenarios that managers can encounter, are we teaching the right ones?Â
Leadership comes in numerous forms: leading projects, leading teams, thought leadership, running operations, running organizations, leading troops up the hill, building coalitions, championing causes, leading by example of good work, and countless more.
As educators and corporate trainers, which type of leadership should be our target in the classroom?
One of the reasons why business graduates are ill-prepared for leadership challenges is that they are not learning the right skills in advanced degree programs.
Consider the master's-level supply chain curriculum. There are typically courses on logistics systems, inventory management, database analytics, supply chain planning, global supply chain management, sourcing and procurement, statistics, linear programming, operations research, finance and cost analysis, transportation management, simulation, information systems, and other technical and management topics. Some two-year programs include a summer internship at a company site working in a supply chain role. There are programs that include classes in public speaking, presentations, and writing. Communications courses often cover how to give an excellent PowerPoint presentation and how to tell your story in a job interview.
How much of the curriculum is devoted to teaching leadership skills? In reviewing the curricula of many of the top supply chain master's programs, we found that only 4 to 7 percent is devoted to any kind of leadership training. Most curricula have one course about leadership. We saw no internships devoted to learning leadership. We were delighted that at least one school offered a supply chain course on "change management," but that was the exception.
Conclusion: Although most supply chain master's students take at least one course on leadership, not much of that is targeted to "go make change happen." Likely, most leadership is learned over the years through "on the job training." Most people pick it up by osmosis and/or trial and error. Many companies offer leadership programs, but the feedback we receive on these programs suggests that they have similar flaws to those offered at the college level.
What are the current teaching approaches? In our research we found that the most frequent aspects of leadership courses focus on leading teams, self-assessment, personal leadership style, effective presentations, leadership and ethics, organizational processes, leadership theory and case studies, leading organizations, energizing others, and building high-performance organizations. Less frequent are courses on attributes of great leaders, leadership models for the C-suite, components of great leadership, and management psychology. It was uncommon to see a course on leadership and the implementation of change.
Closing the knowledge gaps
These types of leadership courses do not match the reality that many recent master's-level graduates face. Imagine the setting. With your new master's degree in supply chain, you are the new hire into a center of excellence in a multinational corporation. You are paid very well and report directly to the vice president of supply chain. You are an individual contributor with no staff, no budget, and no actual authority but are viewed as the new "whiz kid." Your boss asks you to do tasks such as:
Go visit the transportation managers in each of our distribution centers across the country and get those people to set up centralized procurement of transportation services.
Go visit the sales and finance organizations and get those people to start participating in the sales and operations planning (S&OP) process again.
Go to the plant in Cincinnati, Ohio, and get those people to start using the new planning software that we just paid US$10 million for.
Go to sales and get them to stop bringing in all their orders in the last week of the month.Â
Go convince design engineering to reign in their use of unique custom-built raw materials in their product designs.
Having had one class where a leadership technique is described will not help a new supply chain manager deal with these types of scenarios. How can educators (and corporate trainers) do better? We recommend that the focus should be on what students need right now—the day after graduation—not when they become CEO. Students need simple, practical down-to-earth tools to use immediately that they can easily remember.
Our dissatisfaction with current theory-based and self-assessment-based leadership classes led us to develop four workshops for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Supply Chain Management program that focus specifically on "go make change happen." We found that the self-assessment and personality-type training programs that are used in many leadership classes are hard to translate into tangible leadership techniques. Furthermore, students often times could not remember enough about their personality types for that to be the basis of their leadership plan. For that reason, we focused on role-playing exercises that could help students practice the necessary leadership skills many times.
Each of these two- to three-hour workshops follows a similar format of an initial introduction to the whole class, breaking into smaller teams (four to eight people) for role-playing, and then reassembling as the whole class for a discussion and team testimonials. A preview of these workshops is given below and will be described in more detail in four subsequent articles, which will appear on Supply Chain Quarterly's website.
The workshops we created to teach "go make change happen" are as follows:
The Human Element. This workshop teaches quantitatively trained students how to use the "Human Element" to connect with a large audience of "regular people" when they give presentations. Human beings like to look at other human faces and are programmed to do this from birth. If you pause in front of a large magazine stand and look at all the covers, you can see this theory in practice. The purpose of the cover is to make a person stop, want to pick up the magazine, and read it. For this reason, nearly all the magazines you see on a newsstand will have a picture of a human face. Our experience also shows that verbal or text statements connected to a face sink in better and are retained longer. By contrast, persuasion in math and engineering—and therefore in supply chain management—is done through graphs, charts, schematics, and proofs. No human element.
This workshop teaches students how to include pictures of people in their presentations and how to have their key messages appear to be statements coming from real people. Teams of students in breakout rooms are assigned opposing sides of a controversial issue and are given one hour to develop a convincing presentation using the Human Element. When the class reconvenes, each team uses their presentation to persuade the rest of the class to support their position.
More information on the human element can be found here.
"VELD" or Vision, Emotion, Logic, and Details. To drive a change program in a large organization, it is necessary to connect with and persuade all kinds of people—not just engineers and business types—to support the cause. It is human nature to try to convince other people using arguments that sound most convincing to ourselves. For quantitative people, this does not work so well. Think about the current rebellion against such scientific concepts as global warming, vaccinations, and genetically modified crops. It takes more than just quantitative righteousness to carry the day. The VELD method is inspired by Aristotle's three modes of persuasion (ethos, pathos, and logos). We realized that we and our students were stuck on logos (appeal to logic) as the only valid persuasive method. Therefore we invented VELD which adds both "appeal to a compelling future vision" and "appeal to emotion" to our existing tendency to "appeal to logic and details."
This workshop teaches science, engineering, and business students how to incorporate vision and emotion statements in their arguments. Traditionally, math-oriented curricula urge students to make recommendations and business cases by laying out the logic and the details. Appeals to compelling visions or appeals to emotion are scorned in quantitative settings. Yet the large majority of "regular people" are influenced more by a compelling vision and an emotional appeal than by logic and details. Think about some recent elections!
In the workshop, teams of students are assigned an imaginary audience such as the City Council, Department of Transportation, Cultural Committee, and NASA, among others. Each has a different VELD profile. Teams then proceed to create a pitch tailored to persuade that audience, which they then present and justify to the assembled class.
More information on VELD can be found here.
Logrolling. In a legislature, the act of trading votes behind the scenes to get your bill passed was (supposedly) first referred to as "logrolling" by Congressman Davy Crockett of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1835. To champion a cause, our usual gut reaction is to become an evangelist and convince the doubters and naysayers of the benefits and righteousness of our position. This is a lot of work and may not succeed. In very large organizations, especially a multinational corporation, there are always many change programs being promoted at any one time. Each key decision maker can be for or against or neutral on any of these initiatives. Logrolling can be facilitated by working quietly behind the scenes to understand the positions of each of the key decision makers on each issue. It is then possible to bring together people who are neutral on each other's issue and have them agree to support the other person's issue, thereby building enough support to ensure that your issue gets passed.
This workshop has two role plays. Initially, teams of six to eight students, ignorant of logrolling, try to persuade their peers to support their change program any way they can, usually by impassioned arguments. Later they see that they could have reached a deal faster and with less exertion through logrolling. In a final role play, they practice logrolling to quickly make deals.
Cialdini's Six Principles of Persuasion. Robert Cialdini, professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, brilliantly laid out in his best-selling book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, the six methods of persuasion: reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity. We see these every day since marketing firms are experts at using these principles to sell things. "Only two seats left at this price" is an example of scarcity. But it's not just marketing firms that use the techniques. Stop at a red light in the developing world and destitute people will rush out to wash your windshield in hopes of getting a tip. That's an example of reciprocity.
This workshop teaches students how to use these six principles in a very subtle, professional way in a large organization to build up support for their change effort. Teams of students practice the six techniques through role-playing and discuss which ones to use in each example scenario.
Helping change makers excel
Many of our top graduates are in greater need of leadership skills than analytical skills. Yet leadership training makes up only 4 to 7 percent of the curriculum of most supply chain programs. Furthermore the leadership training that is provided is often targeted at less important skills than "go make change happen." For our gifted graduates and new hires to "go make change happen," both educators and corporate trainers need to change their approach to teaching these vital skills. Simple, practical techniques to generate support across large diverse organizations are needed. Repeated practice through role playing is key to developing these skills.
The workshops described in this article represent a good first step but are relatively new and will no doubt be refined as we receive feedback from students and gain more experience in this new approach. We welcome feedback from academic and corporate educators.
The moniker of "rising star" is not given to the person who creates the best linear-programming model. It is given to the person who makes change happen. Let's give future leaders the tools they need to be effective change agents today and tomorrow.
“The past year has been unprecedented, with extreme weather events, heightened geopolitical tension and cybercrime destabilizing supply chains throughout the world. Navigating this year’s looming risks to build a secure supply network has never been more critical,” Corey Rhodes, CEO of Everstream Analytics, said in the firm’s “2025 Annual Risk Report.”
“While some risks are unavoidable, early notice and swift action through a combination of planning, deep monitoring, and mitigation can save inventory and lives in 2025,” Rhodes said.
In its report, Everstream ranked the five categories by a “risk score metric” to help global supply chain leaders prioritize planning and mitigation efforts for coping with them. They include:
Drowning in Climate Change – 90% Risk Score. Driven by shifting climate patterns and record-high temperatures, extreme weather events are a dominant risk to the supply chain due to concerns such as flooding and elevated ocean temperatures.
Geopolitical Instability with Increased Tariff Risk – 80% Risk Score. These threats could disrupt trade networks and impact economies worldwide, including logistics, transportation, and manufacturing industries. The following major geopolitical events are likely to impact global trade: Red Sea disruptions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, Taiwan trade risks, Middle East tensions, South China Sea disputes, and proposed tariff increases.
More Backdoors for Cybercrime – 75% Risk Score. Supply chain leaders face escalating cybersecurity risks in 2025, driven by the growing reliance on AI and cloud computing within supply chains, the proliferation of IoT-connected devices, vulnerabilities in sub-tier supply chains, and a disproportionate impact on third-party logistics providers (3PLs) and the electronics industry.
Rare Metals and Minerals on Lockdown – 65% Risk Score. Between rising regulations, new tariffs, and long-term or exclusive contracts, rare minerals and metals will be harder than ever, and more expensive, to obtain.
Crackdown on Forced Labor – 60% Risk Score. A growing crackdown on forced labor across industries will increase pressure on companies who are facing scrutiny to manage and eliminate suppliers violating human rights. Anticipated risks in 2025 include a push for alternative suppliers, a cascade of legislation to address lax forced labor issues, challenges for agri-food products such as palm oil and vanilla.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.
Maersk’s overall view of the coming year is that the global economy is expected to grow modestly, with the possibility of higher inflation caused by lingering supply chain issues, continued geopolitical tensions, and fiscal policies such as new tariffs. Geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions could threaten global stability, climate change action will continue to shape international cooperation, and the ongoing security issue in the Red Sea is expected to continue into 2025.
Those are difficult challenges, but according to Maersk, a vital part of logistics planning is understanding where risk and weak spots might be and finding ways to dampen the impact of inevitable hurdles.
They include:
1. Build a resilient supply chain As opposed to simply maintaining traditional network designs, Maersk says it is teaming with Hapag-Lloyd to implement a new East-West network called Gemini, beginning in February, 2025. The network will use leaner mainliners and shuttles together, allowing for isolation of port disruptions, minimizing the impact of disruptions to supply chains and routes. More broadly, companies should work with an integrated logistics partner that has multiple solutions—be they by air, truck, barge or rail—allowing supply chains to adapt around issues, while still meeting consumer demands.
2. Implementing technological advances
A key component in ensuring more resilience against disruptions is working with a supply chain supplier that offers advanced real-time tracking systems and AI-powered analytics to provide comprehensive visibility across supply chains. An AI-powered dashboard of analytics can provide end-to-end visibility of shipments, tasks, and updates, enabling efficient logistics management without the need to chase down data. Also, forecasting tools can give predictive analytics to optimize inventory, reduce waste, and enhance efficiency. And incorporating Internet of Things (IoT) into digital solutions can enable live tracking of containers to monitor shipments.
3. Preparing for anything, instead of everything Contingency planning was a big theme for 2024, and remains so for 2025. That need is highlighted by geopolitical instability, climate change and volatility, and changes to tariffs and legislation. So in 2025, businesses should seek to partner with a logistics partner that offers risk and disruption navigation through pre-planned procedures, risk assessments, and alternative solutions.
4. Diversifying all aspects of the supply chain Supply chains have felt the impact of disruption throughout 2024, with the situation in the Red Sea resulting in all shipping having to avoid the Suez Canal, and instead going around the Cape of Good Hope. This has increased demand throughout the year, resulting in businesses trying to move cargo earlier to ensure they can meet customer needs, and even considering nearshoring. As regionalization has become more prevalent, businesses can use nearshoring to diversify suppliers and reduce their dependency on single sources. By ensuring that these suppliers and manufacturers are closer to the consumer market, businesses can keep production costs lower as well as have more ease of reaching markets and avoid delay-related risks from global disruptions. Utilizing options closer to market can also allow companies to better adapt to changes in consumer needs and behavior. Finally, some companies may also find it useful to stock critical materials for future, to act as a buffer against unexpected delays and/or issues relating to trade embargoes.
5. Understanding tariffs, legislation and regulations 2024 was year of customs regulations in EU. And tariffs are expected in the U.S. as well, once the new Trump Administration takes office. However, consistent with President-elect Trump’s first term, threats of increases are often used as a negotiating tool. So companies should take a wait and see approach to U.S. customs, even as they cope with the certainty that further EU customs are set to come into play.
For an island measuring a little less than 14,000 square miles (or about the size of Belgium), Taiwan plays a crucial role in global supply chains, making geopolitical concerns associated with it of keen interest to most major corporations.
Taiwan has essentially acted as an independent nation since 1949, when the nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island following the communist takeover of mainland China. Yet China has made no secret of the fact that it wants to bring Taiwan back under its authority—ambitions that were brought to the fore in October when China launched military drills that simulated an attack on the island.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it could have serious political and social consequences that would ripple around the globe. And it would be particularly devastating to our supply chains, says consultant Ashray Lavsi, a principal at the global procurement and supply chain consultancy Efficio. He specializes in solving complex supply chain, operations, and procurement problems, with a special focus on resilience. Prior to joining Efficio’s London office in 2017, he worked at XPO Logistics in the U.S. and the Netherlands.
Lavsi spoke recently with David Maloney, Supply Chain Xchange’s group editorial director, about what might happen if China moves to annex Taiwan—what shortages would likely arise, the impact on shipping lanes and ocean freight costs, and what managers should be doing now to prepare for potential disruptions ahead.
It’s no secret that China has ambitions on Taiwan. If China were to attempt to seize control of Taiwan, how would that affect the world’s supply chains?
There would be wide-ranging disruptions around the world. The United States does a lot of trade with both China and Taiwan. For example, the U.S. imports about $470 billion worth of goods from China, while China imports about $124 billion from the U.S. Meanwhile, Taiwan is the No. 9 trading partner for the U.S. So all of this trade could come to a halt, depending on the level of conflict. Supplies would likely be disrupted, and trade routes could be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs.
Furthermore, there would likely be disruptions to trade not just between the U.S. and China, but also across the board. It could very well be that the NATO members get involved, that South Korea gets involved, that Japan gets involved, the Philippines get involved, so it could very quickly spiral into widespread disruptions.
We’ve seen big changes in the way businesses in Hong Kong operate since Britain handed control of Hong Kong over to China nearly 30 years ago. If China were to succeed in bringing Taiwan under its authority, would we see a similar outcome?
Indeed, I would expect so. I read recently that since around 2020, foreign direct investment in Hong Kong has dropped by nearly 50%, from $105 million to $54 million. The drop was primarily because of increased regulatory oversight. There are now a lot of restrictions on freedom of speech as well as tighter control over business operations. Something similar could very well happen in Taiwan if China were to succeed in taking over the island.
As you mentioned, the United States conducts a lot of trade with both Taiwan and China, and both countries have become strategic supply chain partners. Beyond the diplomatic considerations, what would a military or economic conflict mean for the United States?
There is a lot of trade in goods like agricultural products, aircraft, electronic components, and machinery, and our access to all of those items could be cut off. On top of that, China controls 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals [which are crucial for the production of a wide variety of electronic devices]. So any conflict in the region would almost certainly result in many disruptions, particularly in critical sectors like technology and electronics—disruptions that would lead to shortages and increased costs.
Trade routes would also be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs. U.S. companies would need to seek out alternative suppliers for critical materials or components they currently source in China, if they haven’t already. And if they haven’t lined up alternative suppliers, any hostilities could result in a complete halt in production.
What effect would such a move have on the global economy?
It’s been quite a few years since economies have just been localized. Any disruption now has widespread ripple effects across the world. As we discussed, any conflict between the United States and China naturally pulls in countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the NATO countries, and it can very quickly spiral out.
Look at the semiconductor, or chip, shortages. If you recall, back in 2021, those shortages led to almost a half-trillion-dollar loss for the automakers, who lost out on sales of 7.7 million vehicles because they couldn’t meet demand. We could see a repeat of that situation—maybe even on a larger scale.
I found this statistic interesting—we often talk about the semiconductor shortages during the pandemic, but if you look at true production numbers, the actual production of chips went up from 2020, to 2021, to 2022. The shortage was driven not by a drop in production, but rather, by a surge in demand for PCs from people working from home. That demand has since dwindled, but we’d still face a major semiconductor shortage if much of the production were halted. So that’s going to be a very big change, a very big disruption.
Of course, the United States, along with a number of other countries, has taken steps to reduce its exposure to risk by bringing some semiconductor production back to its own shores. But it will take time to get those operations up and running, and their output would still be just a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. So what would a takeover of Taiwan mean for the overall semiconductor flow?
It essentially stops, right? Let me paint a picture that illustrates the importance of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry to global manufacturing. Semiconductors go into everything from cars to military equipment to computers to data centers to microwaves—they are in everything around us. Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of the advanced chips. Just let that sink in: More than 90% of all the advanced chips produced worldwide come from Taiwan, primarily from a big fabrication company called TSMC.
So the complexity and the precision required to make advanced semiconductors, combined with the limited number of companies around the world, make Taiwan’s position unmatched. The second-largest producer after TSMC is South Korean-based Samsung, which produces 18%, so that’s the gap that we are talking about.
As you rightly said, there are efforts by governments across the world to reduce their reliance on Taiwan. For example, TSMC is building three fabrication facilities in Arizona—the third with funding from the U.S. government. The first plant is set to go live next year and the third by 2030. But even once all three plants are up and running, the production volumes won’t be close to what TSMC produces in Taiwan. It’s going to take years to reduce our reliance on production in Taiwan. If that supply is cut off, the ripple effect will be tremendous.
Setting aside the historical and political claims China has made on Taiwan, is Taiwan’s dominance in the semiconductor industry a main reason why China has set its sights on it?
It could be. China has been investing heavily in chip production—for instance, today, most, if not all, of the chips in the latest Huawei phones are locally produced in China. But China is still quite a few years behind TSMC. So that’s definitely going to be one of the big factors, right? One article that I found very interesting declared that chips are the new oil. If you control chip production, you control the global market.
Let’s talk about the implications for shipping lanes. If you take a look at the map, you realize that the Taiwan Strait is a very important shipping lane for containerized goods coming out of both China and Taiwan. If China were to institute a military blockade, how would that affect the world’s container flows?
That flow would be affected tremendously. The Taiwan Strait plays a crucial role in global shipping, particularly for goods moving between Asia and the rest of the world. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes, and any blockage would severely disrupt global container flows.
Now let me put that into perspective. Fifty percent of the world’s containerships pass through the Taiwan Strait—50%. That’s a huge number. By comparison, the Suez Canal handles about 20% of global trade. Or to use another measure: 88% of the world’s largest ships by tonnage passed through the Taiwan Strait in 2022.
I’ve been reading up on this in the past few months and it seems that a military blockage is a very likely scenario—one that would cripple Taiwan’s economy without a full-scale invasion. So instead of a mounting a full-on attack, China might just block the strait, which would lead to delays in the delivery of goods, affecting global supply chains and causing shortages across Asia and the U.S.
Given the escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, should shippers and manufacturers be preparing today for a potential conflict?
Businesses have to begin preparing today. If businesses were to say, “Okay, I’m going to wait until the conflict breaks out, and then figure out what I’ll do,” it will be too late. You’re done. Your production comes to halt. You can no longer satisfy your customer requirements. So proactive measures are an absolute requirement.
What should they do to prepare?
I would urge manufacturers and shippers to take what’s essentially a two-pronged approach.
First, you need to segment and identify your critical components, based on how crucial they are to your production operations and the risk associated with their sources, where they’re coming from. After you segment them, you list your top-priority items—the critical components that you absolutely cannot do without. You then split your supply chain into two, so that you have a much more redundant supply chain built for those critical items and then a second supply chain for everything else.
To build redundancy, you establish multiple suppliers and diversify them geographically. You also build in stringent contingency measures, which could include strategic stockpiling, nearshoring, and friendshoring, which is where you store inventory with an ally or in a friend consortium, as well as buying alternative components wherever possible. So all of those measures need to be put in place for the components that you’ve identified as absolutely critical for your production.
What is the second prong?
The second prong is the need to manage increased costs. There’s no getting away from higher costs, right? If you’re holding more inventory, you have higher inventory carrying costs. And if you’re diversifying your supply base, that means you don’t have as much leverage [with individual suppliers]. You’re also going to be managing multiple supply chains, which requires an increase in human capital because you’ll need more people to manage the more complex supply chains that you’re putting in place.
One way to manage costs could be by implementing strategic sourcing programs across the board that are aimed at mitigating some of the expenses. By taking these steps, manufacturers can safeguard their operations against potential disruptions and ensure continuity.
A lot of U.S. companies have been nearshoring to Mexico, which has now become the United States’ leading trade partner. Is that a simple solution for companies looking to reduce their reliance on Asia?
It is one of the solutions. But you won’t be able to replace your Asian supply base immediately—as with semiconductors, it may take a few years to build out that capacity.
So you need to start stockpiling essential components now—particularly if you won’t be able to find alternatives. You want to make sure that you’re holding the right amount of inventory of the components that you absolutely need. So nearshoring is an option, but you need to be careful what you move to Mexico.
Is that because moving production to Mexico will raise your costs compared to sourcing in Asia?
Yes, production costs will be higher compared to a place like Vietnam, where wages are currently lower than in Mexico. It might reduce the logistics cost, but I think there’s still a net increase overall because you’ll have higher expenses for things like regulatory compliance. Plus you’ll have the one-time cost of setting up the facilities.
Ideally, you’ll never have to face these problems we’ve been talking about, but it’s always better to be prepared.
Editor’s note:This article first appeared in the November 2024 issue of our sister publication DC Velocity.
As we look toward 2025, the logistics and transportation industry stands on the cusp of transformation. At the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), we’re committed to helping industry leaders navigate these changes with insight and strategy. Here are six trends that we believe will form the competitive landscape of tomorrow.
1. Digital transformation and data integration: Technology continues to reshape every facet of logistics. Advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are becoming increasingly integrated into supply chain operations, driving efficiency, reducing costs, and enabling proactive decision-making.
For companies to succeed, they must invest in technologies that enhance data accuracy and facilitate seamless information sharing. Those that do so will be able to better anticipate disruptions, optimize routes, and improve customer satisfaction.
2. Sustainability: As the global community continues to prioritize environmental responsibility, the logistics sector faces growing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. The adoption of electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and optimized routes can reduce emissions significantly, and many organizations are setting ambitious targets to lower their environmental impact.
3. Supply chain resilience and flexibility: The capacity to pivot quickly in response to disruptions, whether due to natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or global pandemics, is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Companies are increasingly adopting flexible supply chain models and focusing on diversification to mitigate risk.
4. Nearshoring and reshoring: Bringing manufacturing closer to home—either by relocating it back to the country of origin (reshoring) or moving it to neighboring regions (nearshoring)—not only enhances supply chain agility but also reduces transportation costs, lowers emissions, and lessens exposure to global disruptions. Companies that embrace these approaches can strengthen their competitive positioning, helping them respond more effectively to fluctuations in demand while maintaining cost efficiency and meeting sustainability goals.
5. Workforce development: The logistics industry is facing a talent shortage, particularly in skilled labor and technology-focused roles. As we advance into a more digitalized landscape, we need a workforce proficient in tech and adaptable to change. Organizations must focus on upskilling and reskilling programs to equip their teams with the necessary knowledge.
6. E-commerce and last-mile solutions: E-commerce growth shows no signs of slowing, and with it comes the challenge of meeting rising consumer expectations for fast, reliable, and sustainable delivery. Last-mile logistics remains one of the most complex and costly segments of the supply chain. Innovative solutions, such as urban microfulfillment centers, autonomous delivery vehicles, and drone deliveries, are paving the way for more efficient last-mile solutions.
Looking Ahead
The future of global logistics and transportation holds both challenges and opportunities. At CSCMP, we are committed to supporting our members through these changes, fostering collaboration and sharing insights to navigate the path forward.
The landscape of 2025 may be unpredictable, but with strategic foresight and a commitment to adaptability, we can shape a prosperous future for logistics and transportation. Together, let’s continue to lead the way forward.