The past 18 months have delivered unprecedented challenges to businesses, including managing COVID-related lockdowns, the closure of facilities, hindrances in transportation services, breakdowns in the supplies of essential raw materials, and health and safety issues. It has been an extremely challenging time for supply chain leaders across all industries, and it has also exposed some of the weaknesses of our global supply chains.
Keeping these challenges in mind and listening to the experiences from executives across various industries, although many of the traditional practices to manage supply chains fall flat in this turbulent period, there are many existing principles and practices which could help organizations build resilient supply chains. In this post we’ll go back to the basics and see how these practices can still be applicable in turbulent times to help overcome disruptions.
Following are some of the best practices and proven strategies that can be applied to “crack the code” of supply chain disruptions.
Collaborative Ecosystems
Collaboration is key in this time of uncertainty. Organizations need to collaborate with all of their supply chain partners – including suppliers, transporters, 3PL providers, distributors, retailers, and internal stakeholders. The best recent example of this are the partnerships between pharmaceutical companies and food ordering and delivery companies, which have begun to handle the last mile delivery of products to the customer’s doorstep.
Another example is adoption of well-known practices like vendor-managed inventory (VMI), which is tried-and-tested in industries such as automotive manufacturing and pharmaceuticals to reduce the risks related to lengthy lead times in the procurement of supplies and raw materials – including active pharmaceutical ingredients and packaging materials.
Procurement Strategies
Before diving into procurement strategies, let’s take a look at the semiconductor chip procurement issue. It was quite evident last year that many of the automotive digital cockpit equipment manufacturers – and the automakers that rely on these chips – found themselves competing with makers of notebook computers, smartphones, TVs, and home exercise equipment that were using the same chip suppliers and struggled in procuring these chips due to limited supply. The consumer products sector, which buys chips in much larger volumes, featured higher-priority customers than automakers as far as the chip suppliers are concerned. All told, the global semiconductor chip shortage will cost automakers $110 billion in lost revenues this year.
Let’s analyze the current procurement challenges using the famous Kraljic’s supply matrix. The firm’s supply strategy depends on two dimensions: profit impact determined by volume purchased, percentage of total purchased cost, or impact on product quality or business growth; and supply risk assessed in terms of availability, number of suppliers, competitive demands, make or buy opportunities, and storage risks.
Kraljic’s Supply Matrix – Purchasing Must Become Supply Management
Per Kraljic’s Supply Matrix, for items where the supply risks are high even though profit potential is on the lower side, organizations need to ensure supply of those items – and it’s fine to build redundancy for those supplies and shortlist multiple suppliers for the same set of items. For items where the supply risks are high and the impact on profit potential is high, organizations need to build strategic partnerships with the suppliers – and collaboration is the key for this strategic partnership.
It is recommended to build up local inventory of safety stock to withstand delays in supplies and long lead times.
Push-and-Pull Strategy
The push system initiates production in anticipation of future demand while a pull system initiates production as a reaction to current demand.
A push strategy works fine for all items where demand is almost certain, it is fine to manage the supply chain based on long forecast times. Similarly, on the economy of scale dimension, if there is greater value by aggregating the demand, organizations should go for a push-based strategy.
It is typically difficult to implement a pull-based strategy when lead times are so long that it’s hard to react to demand information. With longer lead times, it is more intuitive to implement a push-based strategy.
On the other hand, a pull strategy works fine for all items where demand uncertainty is high and it’s better to manage the supply chain based on realized demand. On economy of scale dimension, if aggregation does not reduce the cost, a pull-based strategy would make sense.
As many of the manufacturing facilities were closed during the pandemic, there was limited capacity for production and organizations had to decide how to sequence the products they make. It is costly to make things that do not sell, but it’s also costly not to make things that sell – so the capacity needs to be segregated as reactive and non-reactive. Low-risk products where demand is certain and prices are low should be produced in advance based on the forecast. On the contrary, decisions on high-risk products with unpredictable demand are typically delayed until there is a clear market signal on customer demand. As a result, organizations should make the low-risk products and postpone the production of high-risk products until additional market information is available. This means that risk-based scheduling – which involves committing the less risky products or models early to non-reactive capacity – will help organizations manage their production with limited capacity.
Organization should work with sales and operations teams and need to obtain the individual forecast data – rather than consensus – for all products or models. Organization should classify the products as risky or certain based on the variance and standard deviation of the individual forecasted data points on each product. Finally, organizations should try to convert a push strategy to a pull strategy for all risky products.
In this challenging time, supply chain planning and flexibility in demand planning activities are key. Planning during times of uncertainty drives the need for shortening the planning cycle and reducing the reviews from monthly to weekly, down to daily.
Delayed Differentiation
In postponement or delayed differentiation, the firm designs the product and the manufacturing processes so that decisions about a specific product is being manufactured can be delayed. The manufacturing process starts by producing the generic or family product, which is differentiated to the specific end-product when the demand is revealed.
Innovative vs. Functional Product
In his seminal article, “What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Products?”, Marshall L. Fisher distinguishes between two extreme products – functional products characterized by slow technology clock speed, low product variety, and typically low profit margins, and innovative products characterized by fast technology clock speed, short product lifecycles, high product variety, and high profit margins. Along with this product category, when considering the level of demand uncertainty, organizations can decide what is the best supply chain strategy for that product.
While procuring the functional product, an emphasis should be placed on minimizing the total landed cost – which includes:
Unit cost
Transportation cost
Inventory holding cost
Handling cost
Duties and taxes
Cost of financing (if any)
On the other hand, focusing on landed cost is the wrong strategy for innovative products. The focus in this case should be on reducing the lead time and on supply flexibility. Organizations should focus on minimizing the landed cost for functional products and reducing the lead time and on supply chain flexibility for innovative products.
As disruptions caused by the pandemic persist – leading to growing concerns around the movement of materials across geographies – organizations should build up stock locally in either company-owned warehouses, or work with 3PL partners to stock the inventory in warehouses near the customer base. Organizations should try to move most of their portfolios of functional products – which typically have very low demand uncertainty – close to the customer by stocking them in local warehouses or on the racks of partners, including retailers or local shop owners. Organizations should also utilize their local delivery partners to pick up and deliver the items to the customer’s doorstep, and use a business model for revenue sharing with their partners.
Reduce SKU proliferation
Customers are increasingly demanding a wider variety of products, driving the development and introduction of more goods for organizations to stock. Increasing the number of SKUs may result in an unnecessary cost burden for the items which are slow-moving, which can also result in uncertainty in demand forecasting. Limiting to a set of SKUs will help organizations plan and forecast the demand appropriately, which will increase accuracy and decrease the facility cost by reducing the space and trapped capital in warehouses dedicated to slow-moving items. It’s better to focus efforts on a limited set of SKUs and products that are in high demand. This will help ensure a stable supply chain for best-selling products.
Redundancy
Organizations should also conduct a careful analysis of supply chain cost trade-offs and build up an appropriate level of redundancy into the supply chain. To do so, organizations should ask themselves these critical questions:
Does a sourcing strategy with limited suppliers make sense for a key component?
What is the mechanism available to us to quickly recover from sudden supply disruptions?
Is it okay for us to hold a large amount of inventory of key components?
Organizations should shift their focus from cost-to-serve to cost-to-win.
Many stakeholders are involved in the entire supply chain execution and logistics network, and the ability to build enough redundancy throughout the network will ensure continuous, uninterrupted supply chain operations. Organizations must build collaborative relationships with suppliers, identify those supply chain nodes where the risks are highest, and then create multiple backup plans and multiple sources of supply, even if this means a slight cost increase. Qualifying more suppliers creates more options and greater flexibility.
Localization vs. Globalization
Companies are paying special attention to events that have led to supply chain delays threatening their near-term viability. More companies are looking at nearshoring as a solution, in order to find suppliers near them to supplement or replace suppliers in Asia or other parts of the world.
Organizations should try to build hyper-local networks with partners, retailers, and local shop owners. They should make best use of local facilities of retailers and shop owners to move the products close to customers. Organizations should also make use of their delivery partners to pick the items from these local facilities and deliver them to the customer’s doorstep.
Today there is a special focus on moving from globalization to regionalization and then ultimately to localization - e.g. moving from organized retail to more traditional and localized retail, which increases the need for a hyper-local network. Today there is an added advantage to having distributed facilities across multiple locations, rather than a centralized one. Firms have regionalized or localized their supply chains to avoid disruption caused by travel restrictions related to the pandemic, and this helps them better service their customers and make customer deliveries without delays or logistical issues.
Ultimately, organizations should implement an effective distribution strategy where expensive products with low customer demand and high demand uncertainty are stocked at central warehouses, while low-cost products facing high customer demand and low demand uncertainty are stocked at multiple local warehouses. Organizations need to devise their distribution strategies while keeping in mind which items make sense to stock in central warehouses, and which items should be moved and located in regional and local distribution centers.
Improving the Visibility
We need to make real-time information available across the supply chain stakeholders - manufacturers, suppliers, 3PL providers, distributers, retailers, and customers in order to see, control, and pro-actively manage inventory and shipments from the production source to their destination.
All stakeholders should agree to share and provide the access to real-time information about all the processes that occur before and during transit-from planning, sourcing, production, handling, transport, and last-mile delivery. We need to encourage and drive integration across the service lines, channels and systems - partner systems, transporters & truckers to exchange information.
If there is a delay in the order fulfillment or delivery of goods or materials, it will be better to provide that visibility upfront rather than later, as this will help to build mutual understanding and trust across the various players in the supply chain.
eCommerce and Direct to Consumer (D2C) Models
There is a growing focus on eCommerce and Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) in this pandemic time. In this channel, speed, last-mile capabilities, and the ability to comply with the terms and conditions of the market is of supreme importance. D2C requires a deep understanding of the demand patterns and the customer segments, and organizations should have the infrastructure and support systems in terms of partners and delivery services all the way to the doorstep of customers.
Sustainability (Environmental, Social & Governance)
Most importantly, investment in the human element is crucial, in order to build a culture of trust and empathy in this difficult time and take care of all people involved – including employees, partners, and third-party providers such as pickers, truck drivers, and last mile delivery people.
In order to keep up with ESG commitments and promote green supply chains, organizations should consider using solar panels in warehouse facilities and electric vehicles for last-mile delivery. Organizations should aim to design low-carbon distribution networks and contract with low-emissions service providers. As mentioned earlier, during this time, greater emphasis was placed on localization and shorter supply chains, which in turn helped to lessen the environmental impact and cut down carbon emissions.
References
Kraljic P. “Purchasing Must Become Supply Management.”, Harvard Business Review, September – October 1983.
Fisher M.L “What is the right supply chain for your Products?”, Harvard Business Review, March – April 1997.
Rethinking Supply Chain Risk New Threats Demand New Tools and Strategies, Harvard Business Review.
Fisher M.L “Making Supply Meet Demand in Uncertain World.”, Harvard Business Review. May – June 1994.
David Simchi-Levi, Philip Kaminsky, Edith Simchi-Levi, Ravi Shankar “Designing and Managing the Supply Chain. Concepts, Strategies, and Case Studies”, Third Edition.
Surviving Uncertainty – The Economic Times Supply Chain Management & Logistics Summit 2021 | 25th June.
Interest in warehouse robotics remains high, driven by labor pressures and a general desire to further automate distribution processes. Likewise, the number of robot makers also continues to grow. By one count, more than 50 providers exhibited at the big MODEX show in Atlanta in March 2024.
In distribution environments, there is especially strong interest in autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) for collaborative order picking. In this application, the AMR meets pickers at the right inventory location, and the workers then place picks in totes on the robot, which then moves on to another location/picker or off to packing, greatly reducing human travel time.
While the use of robots in distribution is still early in its maturity, for many, if not most, companies, the future is one of heterogeneous robots—different types of bots from different vendors operating in a given facility. With the growth in robotics, these different robots will often need to communicate with each other—either directly or indirectly through use of an integration platform—to automate the flow of information and work. This is broadly termed “interoperability,” and it is an important concept for companies planning warehouse robotics initiatives, with the ultimate goal of achieving a “plug and play” environments where new robots can easily be added to the automation mix and processes adapted over time.
Interoperability example
Why is interoperability important?
Consider the following example. A company buys perhaps 20 AMRs to support collaborative picking. A few years later, additional AMRs are needed to support growth. But now there is another AMR from a different vendor that the company prefers for cost, design, change in stock keeping unit (SKU) attributes, or other factors.
Interoperability will allow a company to keep the AMRs they have and seamlessly add the new AMRs to the mix. Beyond basic integration, a company will want to manage the robots across both vendors in terms of visibility, task assignment, performance measurement, and more, operating as if it’s a single fleet.
That’s a good example of what interoperability is all about.
Are there interoperability standards?
There are some initiatives across the robotics sector to develop cross-vendor integration protocols that will make interoperability much easier. However, these standards, such as VDA5050 (a standardized interface for automated guided vehicles) and the Mass Robotics 2.0 AMR Interoperability Standard, are either not widely used or are still under development.
Many vendors have also started offering support for what is called a “robot operating system” (ROS/ROS2). However, this is a loose, open source framework (not a full standard) that doesn’t fully address the interoperability challenge.
The robotics platform alternative
In the absence of useful standards, companies still have a few options for achieving interoperability. One is the traditional approach of manually programming interfaces between different robots and interfaces between robots and software systems such as warehouse management (WMS) or warehouse execution systems (WES).
The downsides of this approach are well understood. They include extended developing times and the high cost to get the integrations done, as well as a significant lack of flexibility down the road, with some added risk thrown into the mix as well.
A better alternative is the use of a platform strategy. Which begs the question: What is a robotics platform?
A robotics software platform is a middleware ecosystem—cloud-based or on-premise—that provides various capabilities and services from integration to fulfillment planning and execution. It also acts as a bridge between automation systems and various enterprise software applications.
The starting point for any robotic platform success is, in fact, integration. That integration capability includes advanced tools that enable flexible “no code/low code” approaches to connecting robot fleets.
The right platform can also more rapidly integrate with WMS/WES or other software applications, using AI to greatly accelerate the often time-consuming data-mapping process. Once the WMS/WES is connected to the platform, then the robots are also connected to enable real-time, bidirectional access to the WMS/WES data.
Such a platform delivers interoperability across robot types and connects different automated processes. A simple example would be a communication from the platform to a robot needed to move goods from receiving to reserve storage, where another robot is made aware via the platform that there is a new putaway task ready for completion.
Other interoperability considerations
To maximize interoperability opportunities, companies should consider the following interoperability-related capabilities that may be available from a given robotics platform:
Flexibility in integration based on robot software functionality: Different robot vendors come with software at different levels of maturity. An interoperability platform should be able to work with robotic vendors at any level of software functional capability, ensuring flexibility in robot selection.
User experience consistency: For interoperability to be functionally effective, the user interface across robotic-enabled processes should be consistent, so that users can easily interact and switch between different tasks.
Flexible communication protocols: A platform should provide support for a wide range of different protocols, such as application programming interfaces (APIs), socket communication (a two-way communication link between a server and a client program), web services, ROS/ROS2.0, and VDA5050, to name just a few.
Observability: AMRs especially will generate huge of amount of data on their movements and activities that can be used for analytics. The robotics platform should normalize data packets from different vendors to create a unified dashboard.
Safety and risk mitigation: A robotics platform can help achieve safety across different types of robots by understanding the safety protocols of different machines and coming up with a common set of rules. These rules will exist in an extended fleet manager that runs in the platform and sits on top of the fleet managers of each individual brand of AMR.
While some of these capabilities may not be relevant in a company’s early years in warehouse robotics, they could prove valuable down the road, so give them some consideration today.
Interoperability use cases
We’ve already covered a couple of common robotic interoperability use cases:
Adding new robots of the same type but from a different vendor and having all of them operate together as a single fleet.
Connecting different types of robots or automation to support multi-step process flows (for example, receiving to putaway).
Here is another: One global consumer goods company wants to heavily automate distribution processes but give individual regions or countries they operate in the flexibility to select the vendor for a specific type of robot (for example, a layer picker) and be able to easily plug that specific equipment into the larger platform infrastructure. This allows a centralized automation strategy with local execution.
The Interoperability Imperative
For a significant and growing number of companies, the future on the distribution center floor will be robotics of multiple types and vendors. To maximize flow and productivity, these heterogeneous environments must adopt interoperability strategies, enabling systems of different types to operate as if a single fleet. While standards to help with all this may arrive in future, for now a robotics integration and execution platform will provide an attractive alternative to traditional programming-heavy approaches.
Supply chain managers at consumer goods manufacturing companies are tasked with meeting mandates from large retailers to implement item-level RFID. Initially these requirements applied primarily to apparel manufacturers and brands. Now, realizing the fruits of this first RFID wave, retailers are turning to suppliers to tag more merchandise.
This is one more priority for supply chain leaders, who suddenly have RFID added to their to-do list. How to integrate tagging into automated production lines? How to ensure each tag functions properly after goods are packed, shipped, and shelved? Where to position the RFID tag on the product? All are important questions to be answered in order to implement item-level RFID. The clock is ticking on retail mandates.
Different products, new RFID considerations
Hangtags, the primary form of apparel product identification, present a relatively easy way to attach an RFID tag. Pressure-sensitive labels likewise can carry an RFID inlay. The inlay, consisting of a microchip and antenna, holds the product’s unique identifying information. This tiny device is activated when the RFID reader passes by it. For nonapparel products, in many cases, there is no way to attach a hangtag. Therefore, a pressure-sensitive RFID label often must be put directly on the product. If the product is packaged in a box, the RFID carrier can be attached to or placed inside the box. Either way involves the use of just the right solutions, including the adhesive, shape, dimension, and placement. Moreover, there must be an efficient way to attach the labels to products. This requires process engineering and sometimes capital investment to integrate RFID labeling into highly automated manufacturing lines.
Metals, liquids, and low-surface-energy (LSE) materials pose hurdles for RFID item tagging. Tag and label inlays cannot be read properly through metals and liquids, and the pressure-sensitive labels do not always stick well to product surfaces containing silicone, vinyl, polyethylene, and polystyrene. Very small items are also difficult to tag. Metal paint cans, caulk or paste tubes, lipsticks, and reusable water bottles are just a few products that present RFID tagging challenges.
In other cases, it is not so much the product itself that hinders readability but rather the shipping method. For example, it is relatively straightforward to apply an RFID tag or label to a bag of fertilizer. But the fertilizer bags might be stacked 60 deep on a pallet. The pressure is too much. It damages the inlay, killing the tag’s readability. So, RFID tags, which were perfectly fine coming off the production line, are now dead from the stacking pressure.
Solutions and testing
RFID tagging and labeling programs take time to get right. While some manufacturers can set up a successful process in a few weeks or months, for others it can take six months, nine months, a year or longer. Variables influencing implementation time include capital equipment investments, the product types (for example, are the materials, shapes, or surfaces potentially problematic?), label supplier capacity and capabilities, and third-party testing rounds.
The good news is that best practices are being refined every day to incorporate RFID on difficult-to-tag products. A case in point is finding answers to RFID-inlay readability issues on metal or liquid products. There are ways to attach an RFID label to the product’s lid or cap.
The University of Auburn RFID Lab is the de facto U.S. authority on all things retail RFID. Through its ARC program, the lab works with end users to make sure RFID tags meet or exceed their required performance and quality levels. Walmart, for example, requires its suppliers to source from Auburn RFID Lab’s ARC program-approved inlay companies. “ARC is a test system and database that stores comprehensive performance data of in-development and market available RFID tags,” according to the lab’s website. “ARC has been working with end users to translate RFID use cases into specific levels of performance in the ARC test environment.”
High-quality RFID tags and labels are at the heart of it all. The following are some considerations to keep in mind when choosing an RFID tag and label provider:
What are their quality control and testing capabilities? Can they confirm that every tag is readable? Do they have software to verify that UPC and RFID information match up? Do they possess familiarity with Auburn’s RFID Lab approval process?
What is their capacity? How many thousands or millions of inlays do they create per day? Are there minimum order quantities?
What are their order management and shipping processes like? What is their delivery speed? How easy are they to order from? Where are their print facilities located?
Do they offer customization? Do they possess specialized equipment? Can they die cut irregular shapes, including very small dimensions? Do they possess adhesive expertise and application equipment? Do they have solutions for metal, liquid, and other difficult-to-tag items? Are they able to configure label rolls to work on automatic label dispensers?
It takes trial and error to implement RFID item tagging for nonapparel products. Effective, compliant programs do not manifest overnight. Collaboration with experienced label providers and the Auburn RFID Lab will help manufacturers overcome even the most complex RFID tagging challenges. There will be a roadmap to success, and the results in the form of better inventory visibility, swifter sell-through, and stronger sales will be well worth it.
About the Author
George Hoffman is chairman and CEO of FineLine Technologies, a service bureau providing barcode and RFID-integrated labels and tags. All opinions are the author’s own.
Forklift batteries power the fleets at the center of facility operations. If your batteries are well-maintained, your team is empowered to drive efficient, sustainable, and productive operations. Given your forklift battery can also be as much as 30% of your forklift’s total cost, taking care of it is crucial not just for its longevity and efficiency, but in creating a safe, productive, and cost-effective facility. Improper battery care can create a financial strain on your company along with plenty of safety hazards.
Pulling from decades of experience helping some of the largest and busiest facilities across the country with their power management challenges, I’m sharing the most common mistakes that can shorten your forklift battery’s life by up to 60% or one to three years.
Most common forklift power system design mistakes
Four of the most common mistakes are associated with how a company designs its forklift power system, which includes not just the battery but also chargers and changers.
Not considering your batteries as part of a power system. Your system design should be based on more than just the forklift’s battery specification. The best power systems are built after an assessment of your facility’s applications and workflows, such as when and how batteries are watered. To drive higher uptimes and longer battery life, companies need to optimizing not just for everything they do today but also consider their future plans.
Using the wrong charger. Many companies, trying to save a little money, switch to new batteries but use old, mismatched chargers. For example, they change their batteries every five years, but only buy new chargers every 10-20 years. While the battery technology has improved, the charger (the intelligence) hasn’t, and that means they may not be getting the most out of their new battery equipment as far as charge profiles and efficiency. This shortens battery life, drives up power bills, and in the long term, ends up being more expensive than simply buying new chargers.
Having malfunctioning chargers. Chargers are designed to provide power to batteries up until 100% capacity. When a new model of charger is unable to provide full power, it is often due to malfunctioning power modules or communications issues between battery modules and the charger itself. Additionally, older style high frequency (HF), silicon controlled rectifier (SCR), and Ferro chargers may experience output capacity drop off due to malfunctioning fuses, diodes, SCRs, insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs), and capacitors. If left unchecked, the reduced output of these chargers will cause batteries to sulfate and ultimately fail.
Not planning a charging standard operating procedure (SOP) in advance. Most companies charge when it’s best for the operator, but it’s important to set up a charging schedule that also takes into account the needs of your facility and your batteries. A schedule that accommodates both the operator’s and the battery’s needs will lengthen lifespan tremendously. This requires regular monitoring to ensure compliance with the charging SOP. If this is not maintained, batteries will often fail due to the lack of consistent charging.
Most common forklift power maintenance mistakes
The remaining common mistakes focus on how a company maintains its batteries and chargers.
Not implementing an equalization schedule. Lead acid batteries require an equalization charge on a regular basis to maintain their long-term health and capacity. Build a plan for equalization into your battery charger plug-up times, then set those schedules into your chargers.
Not watering correctly. Batteries need to be watered on a schedule. Ideally, batteries are watered right after charging to avoid electrolyte overflow issues, chemical spills, and degradation. Proper water levels ensure electrolytes stay in balance and batteries don’t overheat. These expensive mistakes add up over time.
Having a malfunctioning single-point watering system. Single-point watering systems are employed for labor savings in the weekly watering of batteries. While useful, these systems are subject to failure due to abuse and just normal wear and tear. Oftentimes, these systems will fail at individual watering points and are not noticeably malfunctioning. This will lead to unequal watering and ultimately a series of battery failure points over time. This too must be regularly monitored for proper function.
Not responding swiftly to maintenance issues. It’s important to set up a maintenance schedule so you can ensure every battery and charger gets attention when it should. Early identification of issues, paired with course correction, can nip issues in the bud, greatly extending the life of your equipment.
Your forklift batteries are the preservers of power at your facility. If properly cared for, they power smooth and reliable operations that keep downtime at bay. The unexpected can and will happen every single year—that’s just a part of business. But the expected, that is something we can prepare for. Companies that take a proactive approach to their power and their facility’s unique power are poised to take on any challenge with an uninterrupted power supply.
More than ever before, supply chain businesses are faced with dynamic conditions due to consumer buying trends, supply chain disruptions, and upheaval caused by other outside forces including war, political instability, and weather conditions. Supply chain companies, including warehouses, must be able to pivot quickly and make changes to operational processes without waiting for weeks or months.
As a result, warehouse management systems (WMS) need to be agile enough to make changes to operational processes and turn on a dime in today’s fast-paced world. Traditional warehouse management systems, however, are rigid and complex, not easy to customize or change. In addition, integrations—especially to modern technologies such as the internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning—can be problematic.
Furthermore, traditional warehouse management systems depend on the expertise, experience, and knowledge of software developers to hand code applications. This type of technical labor is costly and can be hard to find, leading to dependence on the WMS software developer. Whenever changes or customizations to traditional WMS are needed, experienced software developers are needed, and this effort is usually time-consuming and expensive.
One solution is to consider a warehouse management system built on a low-code application platform (LCAP). Unlike traditional warehouse management systems, software applications built on LCAPs are more flexible, adaptable to meet changing business requirements, easier to integrate, and scalable.
[subhead] What are low-code application platforms?
LCAPs give users a visual, drag-and-drop interface that allows them to create applications by assembling prebuilt components, integrations, and templates. This simplification of the software development process facilitates faster prototyping, iteration, and deployment.
It also enables application development to be open to nontechnical users who may have significant experience, knowledge, and expertise in warehouse operations. Nontechnical users can work alongside IT resources to automate workflows, create business rules, process flows, and data models. To do this, visual tools are used to replace the need for writing complex code. Event-driven triggers and actions are leveraged to automate repetitive tasks and integrate with other systems. This can lead to better alignment of operational processes within the warehouse.
Low-code application platforms may also include features to promote team collaboration. Multiple users can work on the same project simultaneously, and version control mechanisms help to ensure that changes can be tracked and managed efficiently. In case it becomes necessary, rollback can be used to return to previous versions.
Low-code application platforms include tools for deployment, hosting, and maintenance. Applications can be deployed by users to a variety of environments with only minimal configuration. Maintenance and updates can be handled within the platform, and automated testing and deployment pipelines are frequently used.
Seven benefits of LCAPs
There are many benefits to using an LCAP as opposed to a traditionally coded warehouse management system, including:
1. Adaptability and ability to customize. LCAPs provide significant value for a WMS due to the speed at which applications, features, and customizations can be developed and deployed. This can help to ensure higher customer satisfaction and the ability to adapt more rapidly to supply chain disruptions, changes in demand, and advances in technology.
LCAPs help solve the challenges faced by a rigid traditional WMS by making the WMS faster and easier to tailor to meet customer or business requirements without high-priced IT resources. This can translate into time and labor savings for the warehouse operator.
2. Integration. Atraditional WMS often does not have the capability of integrating with cloud-based services, limiting the ability for it to take advantage of the cost benefits, flexibility, and scalability of cloud computing. In addition, it is often challenging for traditional warehouse management systems to integrate with automation technologies including robotics, autonomous guided vehicles (AGVs), conveyor systems, and other technologies.
Because LCAPs leverage built-in connectors as well as application programming interfaces (APIs) that facilitate integration with other systems, integration is seamless, ensuring a more efficient, cohesive ecosystem. This ease of integration can aid in unifying data across different systems to improve decision-making and information visibility.
3. Scalability. As a business grows, warehouse operations typically become more complex. This complexity typically leads to the need to handle increased volumes of data and more complicated workflows as well as expanded warehouse operations. This can present challenges for traditional warehouse management systems.
Low-code application platforms are able to scale more easily to handle increased volumes of data, more operational complexity, and additional functionality without a complete overhaul of the WMS. It is faster and easier to make quick adjustments on a WMS built on an LCAP. The system can easily scale up or down to handle new business requirements, changes in demand, and much more.
4. Security. Older warehouse management systems may lack the advanced security features required to protect sensitive data from cyber-attacks. Modern low-code application platforms typically include robust security measures to ensure that data is protected.
5. Up-to-date user interface and user experience. The outdated user interfaces commonly found with many older warehouse management systems can hamper productivity and lead to errors. WMS users need to have a streamlined user interface, designed to focus their attention on operations, without distractions.
Using a WMS built on an LCAP can improve the user experience and boost productivity. This is because LCAPs often feature intuitive, user-friendly interfaces that enhance the overall user experience. This makes it easier for warehouse workers to navigate the software, reducing errors and frustration.
6. Real time visibility. Older warehouse management systems may not be able to provide visibility into warehouse operations, inventory levels, and order status in real time. This can reduce the responsiveness to customer and market demands and delay decision-making.
One advantage of using a WMS built on an LCAP is that it can be integrated to IoT devices and sensors. This will enable the capture of real-time data on inventory levels, environmental conditions within the warehouse, equipment status, and more.
7. Data management. Today, with the popularity of online shopping, a WMS needs to be able to handle a high volume of orders with many individual items per order. A traditional WMS, which is designed to handle goods by the case or pallet, rather than by the individual saleable unit, may have performance issues, such as with data lock up or data retrieval, when handling large volumes of data.
Using a WMS built on an LCAP can facilitate the integration of multiple data sources into one unified platform, improving data accuracy and consistency. All data is available in one place. In addition, there are built-in tools for data validation, cleansing, and governance. This helps to ensure high data quality, essential for reliable real-time data visibility.
Transformative potential
Technology continues to advance. Software development continues to evolve. By taking advantage of low-code application platforms to simplify the software development process, supply chain professionals can ensure that they are able to keep up with these changes.
LCAPs enable rapid development, customization, and deployment of software applications, enabling businesses to respond to changing market conditions and technological advances. The result is notable cost and time savings, increased efficiency, and more effective operations. Using LCAPs, companies can take advantage of increased flexibility, scalability, and adaptability to be more competitive, drive operational excellence, and support growth.
Gartner recently published a report discussing the big changes being wrought by artificial intelligence (AI) for procurement. The analysis begins with some intriguing data points:
By 2026, virtual assistants and chatbots will be used by 20% of organizations to handle internal and supplier interactions, and by 2027, 50% of organizations will support supplier contract negotiations with AI-enabled tools.
Data literacy and technology skills will be equally as important as social and creative skills (that is “soft skills”) for procurement staff.
By 2027, 40% of sourcing events will be executed by nonprocurement staff.
By 2029, 80% of human decisions will be augmented—not replaced—by generative AI (GenAI), as humans will maintain their comparative advantages in ingenuity, creativity, and knowledge.
One of the reasons for the forecasted rapid adoption of AI is that the technology seems to respond to a key pressure point on procurement as a function: the lack of staff or staff with the right skills and experience. Staffing concerns are driving procurement organizations to increasingly lean on digital technologies, especially AI and automation, to help. Let’s explore Gartner's argument.
Substantial increase in interest
Thanks to the advancements in the technology skills of procurement professionals and decision support software, there has been a remarkable 17-fold increase in interest in AI applications for procurement in 2023 compared to 2022. Gartner's team anticipates a substantial surge in AI pilot initiatives in 2024. It also sees this as a trend expected to establish widespread acceptance and utilization of AI in procurement in the years ahead.
In particular, the application of GenAI is expected to expand throughout the entire procurement process—presenting opportunities to enhance both the speed and efficiency of operations within the department. For example, autonomous sourcing solutions driven by AI are progressively becoming more adept at handling responsibilities and decision-making that traditionally demanded the expertise of seasoned sourcing professionals.
This expansion enables organizations to streamline sourcing events effectively, transforming them into a more accessible process. Consequently, individuals outside the professional sourcing realm, such as those in the line of business, can now define requirements, pinpoint supplier sources, and initiate and manage sourcing events. In essence, sourcing is evolving into a skill rather than merely a function.
As outlined by Gartner, failing to adopt AI technologies in procurement may place organizations at a significant competitive disadvantage in terms of cost efficiency and agility compared to their peers. To avoid falling behind, the analyst firm is advising procurement leaders to wholeheartedly embrace transformative technologies that will promote and cultivate collaborative relationships with suppliers.
Making AI your servant, not your master
To be clear, procurement professionals will remain pivotal decision-makers. While human decisions will be enhanced by GenAI, humans will continue to make a vital contribution via their knowledge, creativity, and insight.
The unique contribution of GenAI is its ability to generate fresh content, complete missing information, and formulate sample outcomes or scenarios. This capability will play a supporting role in strategic decision-making, augmenting the human decision-making process. Procurement organizations, for example, will want to use virtual agents to automate repetitive tasks, such as purchase request (PR) approvals, internal and external communication, and supplier approvals, enabling human teams to focus on other areas.
To make this work, procurement staff will need to adapt as technology changes the nature of their work, and companies will need to make attracting top talent a priority. Certain skills will be at a premium as AI becomes more prevalent in everyday operations.
This “future-proofing” of skills needs to occur along two axes. One axis is technical. The cornerstone of all AI models is high-quality data and that means organizations need to foster proficiency in data literacy. The ability to identify pivotal data elements influencing decision-making becomes paramount in unleashing the complete potential of technology investments. This ensures that AI incorporates the most relevant data for its intended purposes.
However, the human element will also remain crucial, and this is the second axis. The creativity of procurement staff will be even more highly valued than it is today, given that AI's limitations lie in comprehending problems lacking sufficient data or precedent. Here, skills such as critical thinking will be essential. It will also be important to make connections with internal and external stakeholders. As a result, the ability to make effective presentations and secure stakeholder engagement are also expected to be in high demand. Companies need to think long-term when it comes to professional development and prepare for a future when these capabilities will be essential.
As another analyst firm, McKinsey, has said, it’s the procurement leaders capable of demonstrating quantifiable and long-term value to the enterprise who will become strategic partners to the C-suite.
Moving the needle in procurement
While these predictions are close at hand, they can sound future tense. Yet leading global companies, like adidas, BT, Tesco, and Santander Bank, are already using AI to maximize returns on billions of dollars of spend via autonomous sourcing.
For example, telecommunications company BT is using an autonomous sourcing platform to manage two-thirds of the organization’s £13 billion annual indirect spend—a percentage that BT wants to increase over time to 100%. Buyers have so far put more than 1,000 projects through the platform, automating admin-heavy tasks and cutting go-to-market time for project delivery that made a difference in overall performance. The platform supports various sourcing scenarios, including requests for proposal (RFP), requests for information (RFI), requests for quote (RFQ), sole source, delivery of staffing, supplier panels, and more. It also enables the creation and customization of requirements and the collection of supplier responses in different formats. Consequently, BT reports that autonomous sourcing allows nonprocurement team members to effortlessly initiate a request “with one sentence.”
Clearly, procurement leaders should make plans now to leverage the full power of procurement AI and GenAI. As Gartner recommends, organizations need to start by:
Building a roadmap that shows the technologies organizations need in key areas such as collaboration, negotiation, and sourcing;
Exploring which types of work can be commoditized; and
Looking very carefully at AI procurement vendor offerings—including their research and development (R&D) spend and focus.
But whatever you do, don't delay. CPOs need to start working with CFOs to introduce AI-powered sourcing quickly and secure the results the organization needs to meet the challenges of an uncertain global economy.
Why? Because this AI future is here today. As committed autonomous sourcing user BT has said, “We’re not thinking about if GenAI could help us. Instead, we’re doing it—and across billions of pounds of spend.”