The Supply Chain Index: A new way to measure value
Supply chain executives need a more relevant set of metrics in order to better measure performance improvement. That's why the Supply Chain Index was created.
Supply chain management is a balancing act. Progress is made slowly through alignment and continuous improvement. The supply chain leader is charged with improving the potential of an organization at the intersection of operating margins, inventory turns, and case-fill rate. Sometimes the choices are made consciously, but others are unconscious and seem to just happen. Conscious choice in alignment with a business strategy is a strong factor in determining supply chain excellence.
While supply chain excellence is not the sole factor in a company's success, it is hard for a company to succeed without it. Ensuring success requires a nuanced approach that uses a portfolio of carefully selected metrics. In the journey toward excellence, we find that discrete industries are more focused on cycles, and process industries are more focused on the optimization of flows. However, all companies want a measuring stick of supply chain improvement.
[Figure 4] Orbit chart: Inventory turns vs. operating margin for selected food and beverage companies (2009-2012)Enlarge this image
[Figure 5] Orbit chart: Inventory turns vs. operating margin for selected food and beverage companies (2009-2012)Enlarge this image
[Figure 6] Supply Chain Index for food and beverage for 2006-2013Enlarge this image
[Figure 7] Comparison of performance and improvement for food manufacturersEnlarge this image
It is difficult to determine whether a company is making progress. It is for this reason that we built the Supply Chain Index.
Definition of the Supply Chain Index
The Supply Chain Index of performance improvement is built on the framework of the Effective Frontier (shown in Figure 1). In this model, growth and profitability must be maximized, cycle time should be reduced, and complexity needs to be managed. It is a complex system. An overweighed focus on any one of the four categories can wreak havoc on a supply chain's operations; similarly, a focus on a single metric can throw the supply chain out of balance.
Using this model, the Supply Chain Index is designed to measure supply chain progress on a portfolio of metrics. To build the index, we chose the metrics of year-over-year growth, return on invested capital (ROIC), operating margin, and inventory turns.
The index assumes that its three components—balance, strength, and resiliency—should be valued equally. Balance tracks the rate of improvement in growth and in return on invested capital, while strength and resiliency factors are based upon progress in profitability and inventory turns. We believe that together these three factors provide an effective tool for measuring supply chain performance and improvement over a set time period.
Each industry has different potential, or ability to reach metrics targets. It is a mistake to include information from different companies in a single spreadsheet and evaluate them as a group without understanding their industry potential and market drivers. The maturity and potential of each industry within a value network is very different.
The Supply Chain Index is a measurement of supply chain improvement. In this analysis, the starting year and the duration of the analysis matter. Some industries, like chemical, that struggled significantly during the Great Recession have rebounded with greater gains in recent years. Similarly, the overall results for apparel and food and beverage companies improved in this period, while results for retail and consumer packaged goods stalled. (See Figure 2).
Index methodology
There are three components of a Supply Chain Index score: Objective performance on balance, strength, and resiliency. Each contributes 30 percent of the final score.
Maintaining balance in the supply chain is a constant struggle. Reduced inventory availability wreaks havoc on customer-service levels. Excess inventory leads to high carrying costs and obsolescence of product. Excessively long days of payables leads to weakened supplier health. The examples are endless, but one thing is clear: balance is critical.
The two metrics that determine the balance factor are revenue growth and return on invested capital. As a metric, return on invested capital is not as well known as return on assets (ROA). Return on assets has a narrower focus; our research indicates that, as the formula below suggests, ROIC has better correlation with stock market capitalization and provides a broad perspective on cash-flow generation and profitability, both of which drive shareholder equity.
ROIC, then, is a measurement of a company's use of capital. The goal is to drive higher returns than the market rate of the cost of capital.
The balance measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory of the pattern between growth and ROIC for the period of 2006 to 2013. The overall trajectory of this vector from Year 0 (2006) to Year 6 (2013) is simplified into a single value that represents the company's ability to balance growth and ROIC. Companies that were able to drive improvement in both metrics score the best, while companies that deteriorated in both metrics did the worst. A negative score on the balance score translates to a supply chain that lost ground on the metrics compared to the starting year. In this report, we consider two time periods. Our initial analysis considers performance based upon a time period of 2006-2012. Additional analysis focuses on the narrower time period of 2009-2012 in order to examine corporate performance as companies emerged from the Great Recession.
The second factor in the index is strength. A successful supply chain is a strong supply chain. Supply chain leaders deliver year-over-year improvements. Our research over the past two years has uncovered a rich relationship between operating margin and inventory turns. For most supply chain leaders, these are some of the most important measures of their performance. Not only are they important, they also are more directly influenced by supply chain decisions than other, broader corporate metrics. It is for this reason they are the two components of our strength metric.
Similar to the calculation of balance, the strength measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory of the pattern between inventory turns and operating margins for the period of 2006 to 2013. The overall trajectory of this vector from Year 0 (2006) to Year 6 (2013) is simplified into a single value that represents strength. Improvement on both metrics simultaneously is graphically shown as movement to the upper-right quadrant, with increasing values for both inventory turns and operating margin over the period.
The strength metric comprises 30 percent of the total Supply Chain Index calculation. Sustained improvement on both inventory turns and operating margin indicates a strong supply chain and is reflected in a high strength score.
The third factor is resiliency—a word often used to describe one of the key qualities of a successful supply chain in today's volatile world. However, the concept of resiliency is difficult to define, and there is rarely clarity among stakeholders as to what resiliency is or should be.
As we plotted orbit chart after orbit chart, we could see that some supply chains showed very tight patterns at the intersection of operating margin and inventory turns, and that other companies had wild swings in their patterns. (An orbit chart is a plot of the trajectory of two metrics. It is useful in pattern recognition.) We wanted to find a way to measure the tightness, or reliability, of results for these two important metrics. For help, we turned to the experts at Arizona State University (ASU). After evaluating several methods to determine the pattern in the orbit charts, we settled upon the Euclidean mean distance between the points (a measurement of the compactness of the chart).
The resiliency metric is similar to the cash-to-cash cycle in that companies should work to minimize the value. A lower number for resiliency is an indicator of a tighter pattern and greater reliability in results over the time period. The results for these companies are more predictable and stable for operating margin and inventory turns.
The balance, resiliency, and strength values are calculated and then stack-ranked. Figure 3 shows the framework we use for making this determination. In the analysis, each industry segment, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, will be considered on an individual basis. As a result, Colgate-Palmolive Company will not be directly compared against Ford Motor Company or Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The definition of a best-in-class supply chain varies depending on the complexities and realities of the operating environment and it is not a one-size-fits-all business measurement.
"Most improved" does not mean "the best"
It is important to clarify what the Supply Chain Index is and is not. It is a methodology for ranking supply chains by industry and NAICS code, and the measurement is one of relative improvement. Our goal is to combine data on companies that have performed well—in the top 20 percent of their peer group for both inventory turns and operating margin for the period—along with a measurement of improvement, as measured by the Supply Chain Index.
It is critical to note that "most improved" over a specific time period does not mean best over that same time period. Industries like apparel that have historically underperformed on supply chain processes have greater opportunities for improvement than do companies in industries like consumer electronics, which has been a leader in supply chain performance for many years.
Oftentimes the results can be surprising, and this distinction between performance and improvement is critical. Often, companies that have the largest gaps in performance will improve at the fastest rate. To understand the methodology, let's take a closer look at the food and beverage category.
Food and beverage manufacturers struggle with the unique challenges of volatility in commodity prices, a high degree of seasonal fluctuations from both the supply and demand sides, and perishability of products, as well as regional food profiles that make global management challenging. The orbit chart in Figure 4 illustrates the patterns for inventory turns and operating margin performance within the food and beverage industry for a group of industry leaders. As can be seen in Figure 5, which looks at four companies from within that group, General Mills operates at a higher level of performance than the other three competitors in both operating margin and inventory turns. (The asterisks indicate the starting year.) But as shown in Figure 6, Hershey is achieving the greatest improvement.
The better the supply chain, the tougher it is to drive improvement. So, while we could debate whether the top performer is General Mills (which operates in the top 20 percent on operating margin and inventory turns and shows slow improvement) or Hershey (which shows the greatest improvement), what is clear is that Conagra, Hillshire Brands, Kellogg, and Maple Leaf Foods are not among the top performers in terms of improvements.
Improvement needs to be looked at together with performance. When we do this, as shown in Figure 7, we find that General Mills achieves both above-average performance for the period in inventory turns, operating margin, and return on invested capital, and is making year-over-year improvement in supply chain performance ahead of its peer group.
A measure of excellence
Supply chain leaders want to excel. They need to measure performance improvement, but due to the complexities of the metrics, this is harder to do than many think. Averages only tell part of the story.
We find that the patterns representing year-over-year performance are a better indicator of supply chain excellence than single measurements presented in year-by-year snapshots. The Supply Chain Index is a measurement of supply chain improvement and is a useful methodology for comparing the progress of companies within a peer group. As such, it is a helpful tool for the supply chain team to use to gauge supply chain potential, or for defining reasonable targets based on a feasible rate of improvement.
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.