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.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.