Why VMI does not work for CPG companies
Thank you for your article on vendor-managed inventory (VMI) ("Time to reconsider VMI?," Quarter 4/2011). In the opening description of the snack-food company, we are provided with a wonderful description of a smart system. The retailer provides daily stock-balance information, and the snack-food manufacturer uses this valuable data to plan restocking deliveries, production capacity, and marketing campaigns (to speed up slower-than-anticipated demand). So why has this idea not been as successful with consumer packaged goods (CPG) manufacturers?
You report feedback that suggests that the VMI model is too expensive when compared with the benefits. You say that part of the problem is that VMI depends on accurate forecasts, and that these are proving to be elusive. You also state that point-of-sale (POS) systems provide clearer information to drive replenishment of inventory on hand. And you state that automatic replenishment is something that never happened with VMI.
But I do not see the difference in the two systems that would require one to rely on an accurate forecast and the other not to need this data. I also do not see why POS data provide clearer information in regard to inventory on hand. POS requires a calculation to determine stock balance. VMI requires a stock balance.
I suspect that the issue is more related to how the retailer is burdened by each method. POS is relatively easy to set up. Since goods are scanned to bill the customer, no extra work is required to capture additional data. In the case of VMI, where the retailer is required to provide a daily stock balance, there is the additional burden of needing to have a system to calculate the balance on hand and to send one extra transaction (inventory balance) per stock-keeping unit (SKU) to the manufacturer. It is a small burden, but a burden nevertheless.
I can see VMI working where inventory-balance data is integral to the retailer's process, for example with bulk retailers, which worry about this more so than CPG retailers. But for VMI to replace POS in CPG, a paradigm shift in the methods for collecting data is required.
Alan J. Bishop
Principal, Scoord
Franklin, Tennessee, USA
No substitute for face-to-face communication
I couldn't agree more with your suggestion that manufacturers and retailers sit down and have some face-to-face conversations. E-mails and phone calls make it easy for us to feel as though we have communicated and have alignment with partners. Unfortunately, using these methods to communicate also seems to make it easy to not stay committed to those things we may have discussed or agreed to with our supply chain partners. Meeting face-to-face makes commitments much more personal and difficult to not follow through when you know you'll be meeting face-to-face again at some future time.
I feel so strongly about the need for face-to-face conversations with partners that, when I was managing a supply chain for a manufacturer of health and beauty-care products, we had an ongoing practice that each third-party logistics company (3PL) we used would be visited by someone from our supply chain group (transportation, distribution operations, customer service, etc.) at least once per quarter. During each visit, our supply chain staff would conduct a brief audit of the operations using an audit tool that included items we and our 3PL partner had previously agreed were important. They would review the results prior to leaving the facility, and all parties would agree to any corrective actions needed. In addition, we had a standard question that was asked at every face-to-face meeting: What can we (the manufacturer) do to enable you to perform at a higher level of accuracy or efficiency?
Thank you again for reminding us all of the importance and value of face-to-face communications with our supply chain partners.
Mark Richards
Vice President, Associated Warehouses Inc.
Orange, California, USA
Editor's Note: Mr. Richards is responding to a March 2012 commentary in "Supply Chain Executive Insight," a monthly electronic newsletter developed by CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Sign up for this FREE newsletter.
Communication is key to lean success
"Guerrilla Lean: Leading a Lean initiative from below" (Quarter 1/2011) is a very good article on lean manufacturing. As the author correctly stated, need, vision, and ability to change are three parameters one should consider while bringing about a manufacturing transformation.
Leaders need to take their team with them if they want to achieve operational improvements. Motivating employees to adopt lean principles is a major challenge. One must be a powerful communicator (both written and oral) in order to influence others. It also requires management support and leadership. Determining why change is needed and what should be changed, and then creating the ability to change requires leadership and vision.
In order to adopt successful lean manufacturing in an organization, it is necessary to have thought leadership and emotional intelligence.
Sanjay Kumar Nanda
Consultant, Accenture India Pvt Ltd.
Hyderabad, India
Total cost approach crucial to all supply decisions
I just thought I'd share my opinions about the "Time to come home" article (Quarter 4/2011).
I think it was very well-written in that it was very precise, to the point, and also quite brief for an article that contained so many hard facts.
The sample total cost of ownership template was very helpful as to what to consider when quantifying the real cost of a product to be purchased. The template can be used not only for decisions about whether to offshore or reshore but also for all decisions related to picking sources of supply, even among local suppliers, since most of the criteria in the total cost approach can, at times, vary locally.
Also, in our industry, we have become used to quantifying almost every idea in order to make the transition from concept to practice. Without some number crunching, it is not likely that we will go too far. Therefore, I think, the article also stands out in that respect.
Mustafa Bayülgen
Team Manager Material Supply, Mercedes-Benz Türk A.Ş
Istanbul, Turkey
We want to hear from you!
We invite you to share your thoughts and opinions about the articles that appear in CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly by sending an e-mail to Editor James A. Cooke, or writing to:
James A. Cooke, Editor CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly
500 East Washington Street
North Attleboro, MA 02760
USA
We will publish selected readers' comments in future issues of the magazine. Correspondence may be edited for length or clarity.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
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.
That percentage is even greater than the 13.21% of total retail sales that were returned. Measured in dollars, returns (including both legitimate and fraudulent) last year reached $685 billion out of the $5.19 trillion in total retail sales.
“It’s clear why retailers want to limit bad actors that exhibit fraudulent and abusive returns behavior, but the reality is that they are finding stricter returns policies are not reducing the returns fraud they face,” Michael Osborne, CEO of Appriss Retail, said in a release.
Specifically, the report lists the leading types of returns fraud and abuse reported by retailers in 2024, including findings that:
60% of retailers surveyed reported incidents of “wardrobing,” or the act of consumers buying an item, using the merchandise, and then returning it.
55% cited cases of returning an item obtained through fraudulent or stolen tender, such as stolen credit cards, counterfeit bills, gift cards obtained through fraudulent means or fraudulent checks.
48% of retailers faced occurrences of returning stolen merchandise.
Together, those statistics show that the problem remains prevalent despite growing efforts by retailers to curb retail returns fraud through stricter returns policies, while still offering a sufficiently open returns policy to keep customers loyal, they said.
“Returns are a significant cost for retailers, and the rise of online shopping could increase this trend,” Kevin Mahoney, managing director, retail, Deloitte Consulting LLP, said. “As retailers implement policies to address this issue, they should avoid negatively affecting customer loyalty and retention. Effective policies should reduce losses for the retailer while minimally impacting the customer experience. This approach can be crucial for long-term success.”