Five years ago, IBM went in search of a tool to help it better assess the vulnerabilities of its global pool of suppliers. When the company couldn't find what it needed, Louis R. Ferretti and his team built their own.
As supply chains have become more global, the complexities of managing risk across vast and varied physical and political geographies arguably have grown by orders of magnitude. That's a lesson that IBM, one of the world's largest technology companies, has taken to heart. Beginning in 2009, the company undertook the task of building a complex supply chain risk management tool, now deployed globally, that provides managers with a way to examine supply risk in a much more robust fashion than ever before.
The team that developed it was headed by Louis R. Ferretti, the project executive who leads global and strategic programs within IBM's Integrated Supply Chain business unit and across its global supplier network. Ferretti's charge includes environmental compliance, supply chain social responsibility, conflict minerals, business continuity planning, sustainability, and risk management. He is also a member of IBM's corporate crisis management team.
Ferretti recently spoke to Editorial Director Peter Bradley about the development and rollout of the supply chain risk management tool.
Companies have been talking about risk management for a long time. What led IBM to develop a supply chain risk tool?
IBM, like others, has always assessed supply chain risk. Typically, we would look at whether our supplier was a single or sole source supplier and whether there was a financial risk associated with that supplier, and maybe we'd look at some logistics aspects. That was the sum total of what was done for our suppliers across the board.
But our supply chain has become global in nature. We are sourcing in probably 80 countries, and we are sourcing many times in countries where the risks are much higher. So our senior leaders asked our CPO (chief procurement officer) what we were doing. Quickly, our CPO responded that we would work to address supplier and supply chain risk in a much broader, holistic fashion. We would cover political, financial, economic, logistics, and climatic factors. Our CPO listed probably a dozen factors that we would consider in a newer approach to risk. That was the mission that was handed over to me in 2009.
Give me a sense of the timeline of the process to make that happen.
I needed to step back. I thought that there was a supply chain risk industry, and what I would do is go find a subscription and get someone to provide me with all the information I was looking for as far as disruptions to the supply chain. After interviewing large companies and even small companies, they told us at the time that this was interesting but that nobody else was asking for it.
I figured that if they didn't have it and would have to build it, that we could probably do an equally good or better job of building it for ourselves and customizing it to our specific risk profile. We had a small core team, maybe a half-dozen people, and we started examining how we would put this together. It probably took us a little bit over a year to put our concept in place, to develop the requirements, and actually do the coding. The end result is what's known as our "Total Risk Assessment Tool and Process."
When I got this assignment, I wasn't told to build a tool. I was told to put a process in place that would assess supplier and supply chain risk and all these factors. Once we started examining the scope of risk and then looking at the data that we would need, we realized very quickly that this was not a spreadsheet tool, but it really had to be a much more sophisticated database and analytic tool [for] developing an algorithm that would look at this information and produce, as a result, the level of risk. But that is not where I started out.
Name: Louis R. Ferretti Title: Project executive Organization: IBM Integrated Supply Chain Education: Bachelor of Science in Engineering Science, City University of New York Business experience: Senior management and executive positions in engineering, procurement, materials management, supply and demand management, and operations
Prior to developing this tool, how did you assess supply risk?
Our procurement councils—what most companies call category management groups—would look at their suppliers, and they would make a determination of the level of risk, typically based upon one or two factors: single source and financial risk. Now, the interesting thing is that comparing council to council, there was really no definition of risk. There were no criteria. Each council—we had dozens of councils—would make, I want to say, a subjective call. They really didn't have a benchmark in order to compare one with another.
Let's go back to the development of the tool. What did it take to build and get it in place?
We assembled a small team from procurement, engineering, GBS [IBM's Global Business Services consulting division], business integration and transformation, and the chief information officer's (CIO's) office. We determined what risks we needed to consider, what data we would need to evaluate the risks, an algorithm to assess the impact versus likelihood of an event occurring, who the users would be, what kind of training they would need, and how often to run the tool. We had to develop thresholds and metrics as well as a management system around the process. Gathering the tool requirements, tool development, and testing took about a year.
Tell me a little bit about the rollout.
Prior to the actual rollout, we built a prototype and then ran a pilot with several users. We got excellent feedback and made changes. The CPO was a very strong proponent of using the tool. And within just about a year from the initial deployment, the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami struck Japan. The teams found the tool invaluable in gaining insight as to which suppliers we had in Japan, what commodities were made there, etc. Then later that year came the Thailand floods. After those two events, all of the procurement team members were in.
Now, this is clearly extra work for the sourcing team. We did a couple of things to ease into this. We had extensive education on not just why we were doing this but also on how the tool works; the purpose of the questions; why we would look at the country, region, suppliers, supplier sites, and the commodity—and why we chose those particular things; and then how the algorithm would take that information, weigh it, and produce a result. Then, when we had a result, what we would do with it.
There must be some way for the tool to adjust to changing conditions?
The factors that are considered in the tool are not ones where you would typically see dramatic changes from week to week, month to month, and so forth, and we don't run the tool that frequently, though we could. What really changes are situations, whether it be the Thailand floods, issues with Ukraine, the protests in Hong Kong. Those things are real time. To augment the tool's calculation on the high-risk/medium-risk/low-risk slider, you rely quite heavily on the real-time alerts. So we have a system in which we collect information around the clock, and we look at the data and the alerts, and we make a determination very quickly as to whether or not we think it is going to impact the supply chain only in the short term or if it is a fundamental issue that is going to change the supply chain for the longer term.
What has the tool done for IBM?
Well, overall it has raised the level of risk awareness and sensitivity. Sourcing people around the world understand that sourcing the product and getting the best price and getting it delivered on time are all necessary, but understanding the level of risk that the supplier brings as well as [the level of risk in] the part's supply chain is something that is equal to the other items.
In the Japan situation, the tool immediately told us how many suppliers we had in Japan, whether they were tier one or two, what commodities they provided, etc. The executive team could reach out to the suppliers right away and determine if the factories would be up and running and if not now, when. We had an abundance of information at our fingertips that we eventually would have gotten to, but the sooner you get this information, the more options you have to deal with the crisis, because for the most part, competitors are going to the same suppliers, the same manufacturing lines, the same capacity.
Do you have plans to expand the tool's scope and features?
There are really a couple of things here. It would sure be nice if we could see a picture of the factory when our executive is talking to that top executive in Japan. Actually, we developed what we call a "risk app" and tested it, and we have it in play now. We are going to be using it for other aspects of IBM, so this gives us the ability to communicate on the spot.
The next thing that we did is [a result of] the Thailand flooding. About 50 percent of the hard drive business is in Thailand, so that situation was very, very acute. We were asked to look at supply clustering. So we looked around, and we found that we do have suppliers in several sites around the world that are clustered in different geographies. So we started to look at the potential for flooding. We actually have this now; we've got a prototype that is up and running, and we are using it.
Editor's note: To learn more about the development of IBM's Total Risk Assessment Tool, watch our exclusive interview with Louis Ferretti at www.supplychainquarterly.com/video/index/3866842923001/.
Container imports at U.S. ports are seeing another busy month as retailers and manufacturers hustle to get their orders into the country ahead of a potential labor strike that could stop operations at East Coast and Gulf Coast ports as soon as October 1.
Less than two weeks from now, the existing contract between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance covering East and Gulf Coast ports is set to expire. With negotiations hung up on issues like wages and automation, the ILA has threatened to put its 85,000 members on strike if a new contract is not reached by then, prompting business groups like the National Retail Federation (NRF) to call for both sides to reach an agreement.
But until such an agreement is reached, importers are playing it safe and accelerating their plans. “Import levels are being impacted by concerns about the potential East and Gulf Coast port strike,” Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett said in a release. “This has caused some cargo owners to bring forward shipments, bumping up June-through-September imports. In addition, some importers are weighing the decision to bring forward some goods, particularly from China, that could be impacted by rising tariffs following the election.”
The stakes are high, since a potential strike would come at a sensitive time when businesses are already facing other global supply chain disruptions, according to FourKites’ Mike DeAngelis, senior director of international solutions. “We're facing a perfect storm — with the Red Sea disruptions preventing normal access to the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal’s still-reduced capacity, an ILA strike would effectively choke off major arteries of global trade,” DeAngelis said in a statement.
Although West Coast and Canadian ports would see a surge in traffic if the strike occurs, they cannot absorb all the volume from the East and Gulf Coast ports. And the influx of freight there could cause weeks, if not months-long backlogs, even after the strikes end, reshaping shipping patterns well into 2025, DeAngelis said.
With an eye on those consequences, importers are also looking at more creative contingency plans, such as turning to air freight, west coast ports, or intermodal combinations of rail and truck modes, according to less than truckload (LTL) carrier Averitt Express.
“While some importers and exporters have already rerouted shipments to West Coast ports or delayed shipping altogether, there are still significant volumes of cargo en route to the East and Gulf Coast ports that cannot be rerouted. Unfortunately, once cargo is on a vessel, it becomes virtually impossible to change its destination, leaving shippers with limited options for those shipments,” Averitt said in a release.
However, one silver lining for coping with a potential strike is that prevailing global supply chain turbulence has already prompted many U.S. companies to stock up for bad weather, said Christian Roeloffs, co-founder and CEO of Container xChange.
"While the threat of strikes looms large, it’s important to note that U.S. inventories are currently strong due to the pulling forward of orders earlier this year to avoid existing disruptions. This stockpile will act as an essential buffer, mitigating the risk of container rates spiking dramatically due to the strikes,” Roeloffs said.
In addition, forecasts for a fairly modest winter peak shopping season could take the edge off the impact of a strike. “With no significant signs of peak season demand strengthening, these strikes might not have as intense an impact as historically seen. However, the overall impact will largely depend on the duration of the strikes, with prolonged disruptions having the potential to intensify the implications for supply chains, leading to more pronounced bottlenecks and greater challenges in container availability, " he said.
A coalition of freight transport and cargo handling organizations is calling on countries to honor their existing resolutions to report the results of national container inspection programs, and for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to publish those results.
Those two steps would help improve safety in the carriage of goods by sea, according to the Cargo Integrity Group (CIG), which is a is a partnership of industry associations seeking to raise awareness and greater uptake of the IMO/ILO/UNECE Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (2014) – often referred to as CTU Code.
According to the Cargo Integrity Group, member governments of the IMO adopted resolutions more than 20 years ago agreeing to conduct routine inspections of freight containers and the cargoes packed in them. But less than 5% of 167 national administrations covered by the agreement are regularly submitting the results of their inspections to IMO in publicly available form.
The low numbers of reports means that insufficient data is available for IMO or industry to draw reliable conclusions, fundamentally undermining their efforts to improve the safety and sustainability of shipments by sea, CIG said.
Meanwhile, the dangers posed by poorly packed, mis-handled, or mis-declared containerized shipments has been demonstrated again recently in a series of fires and explosions aboard container ships. Whilst the precise circumstances of those incidents remain under investigation, the Cargo Integrity Group says it is concerned that measures already in place to help identify possible weaknesses are not being fully implemented and that opportunities for improving compliance standards are being missed.
By the numbers, overall retail sales in August were up 0.1% seasonally adjusted month over month and up 2.1% unadjusted year over year. That compared with increases of 1.1% month over month and 2.9% year over year in July.
August’s core retail sales as defined by NRF — based on the Census data but excluding automobile dealers, gasoline stations and restaurants — were up 0.3% seasonally adjusted month over month and up 3.3% unadjusted year over year. Core retail sales were up 3.4% year over year for the first eight months of the year, in line with NRF’s forecast for 2024 retail sales to grow between 2.5% and 3.5% over 2023.
“These numbers show the continued resiliency of the American consumer,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a release. “While sales growth decelerated from last month’s pace, there is little hint of consumer spending unraveling. Households have the underpinnings to spend as recent wage gains have outpaced inflation even though payroll growth saw a slowdown in July and August. Easing inflation is providing added spending capacity to cost-weary shoppers and the interest rate cuts expected to come from the Fed should help create a more positive environment for consumers in the future.”
The U.S., U.K., and Australia will strengthen supply chain resiliency by sharing data and taking joint actions under the terms of a pact signed last week, the three nations said.
The agreement creates a “Supply Chain Resilience Cooperation Group” designed to build resilience in priority supply chains and to enhance the members’ mutual ability to identify and address risks, threats, and disruptions, according to the U.K.’s Department for Business and Trade.
One of the top priorities for the new group is developing an early warning pilot focused on the telecommunications supply chain, which is essential for the three countries’ global, digitized economies, they said. By identifying and monitoring disruption risks to the telecommunications supply chain, this pilot will enhance all three countries’ knowledge of relevant vulnerabilities, criticality, and residual risks. It will also develop procedures for sharing this information and responding cooperatively to disruptions.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the group chose that sector because telecommunications infrastructure is vital to the distribution of public safety information, emergency services, and the day to day lives of many citizens. For example, undersea fiberoptic cables carry over 95% of transoceanic data traffic without which smartphones, financial networks, and communications systems would cease to function reliably.
“The resilience of our critical supply chains is a homeland security and economic security imperative,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas said in a release. “Collaboration with international partners allows us to anticipate and mitigate disruptions before they occur. Our new U.S.-U.K.-Australia Supply Chain Resilience Cooperation Group will help ensure that our communities continue to have the essential goods and services they need, when they need them.”
A new survey finds a disconnect in organizations’ approach to maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO), as specialists call for greater focus than executives are providing, according to a report from Verusen, a provider of inventory optimization software.
Nearly three-quarters (71%) of the 250 procurement and operations leaders surveyed think MRO procurement/operations should be treated as a strategic initiative for continuous improvement and a potential innovation source. However, just over half (58%) of respondents note that MRO procurement/operations are treated as strategic organizational initiatives.
That result comes from “Future Strategies for MRO Inventory Optimization,” a survey produced by Atlanta-based Verusen along with WBR Insights and ProcureCon MRO.
Balancing MRO working capital and risk has become increasingly important as large asset-intensive industries such as oil and gas, mining, energy and utilities, resources, and heavy manufacturing seek solutions to optimize their MRO inventories, spend, and risk with deeper intelligence. Roughly half of organizations need to take a risk-based approach, as the survey found that 46% of organizations do not include asset criticality (spare parts deemed the most critical to continuous operations) in their materials planning process.
“Rather than merely seeing the MRO function as a necessary project or cost, businesses now see it as a mission-critical deliverable, and companies are more apt to explore new methods and technologies, including AI, to enhance this capability and drive innovation,” Scott Matthews, CEO of Verusen, said in a release. “This is because improving MRO, while addressing asset criticality, delivers tangible results by removing risk and expense from procurement initiatives.”
Survey respondents expressed specific challenges with product data inconsistencies and inaccuracies from different systems and sources. A lack of standardized data formats and incomplete information hampers efficient inventory management. The problem is further compounded by the complexity of integrating legacy systems with modern data management, leading to fragmented/siloed data. Centralizing inventory management and optimizing procurement without standardized product data is especially challenging.
In fact, only 39% of survey respondents report full data uniformity across all materials, and many respondents do not regularly review asset criticality, which adds to the challenges.