Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
p>Disclaimer: This is not about Tom Cruise jumping about in his small clothes, as in the movie "Risky Business." Rather, it's about a topic we wrote about in this space a few years back: supply chain resilience. The foundation was built from concepts outlined by Yossi Sheffi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in his book The Resilient Enterprise (coincidentally published in the wake of Hurricane Katrina). At the time, the idea hit home, and there was a flurry of activity around planning for operational continuity in the event of unlikely disasters.
But we're not hearing as much about risk management these days. Maybe we made good plans but abandoned them when they were not immediately needed to respond to a crisis. Perhaps we believed that bad things couldn't happen to us. Yet that kind of thinking flies in the face of reality.
It's not just the staggering, widespread, and continuing consequences of the nuclear accident and tsunami in Japan. We've had another volcano in Iceland, earthquakes in New Zealand, tornados in the United States, and so on and so on. Not to mention the Gulf of Mexico's spectacular deep-water oil spill, the BP saga. Oh, wait, then there are the 2011 rains and flooding that shut down water transport on the Mississippi River.
All of these seem to have had supply chain consequences that hadn't been contemplated, that hadn't been addressed by having relevant contingency plans in place. For example, supply chain managers and their manufacturing peers were shaken to the core when the twin disasters of earthquake and tsunami, exacerbated by nuclear uncertainty, shut down the flow of critical parts and materials from Japan in early 2011.
Worth reading and heeding
We're not going to recap the content of Sheffi's The Resilient Enterprise. But it really is worth reading and heeding. In sum, it powerfully demonstrates the value of recognizing that there are so very many unlikely disasters facing every company that it is prudent—and should be mandatory—to proceed as if at least one of the unlikely cases will occur.
As for what's involved in supply chain risk management—and what should be—we recommend an approach similar to what Dr. Sheffi has prescribed. It's hard work, it's resource-intensive, it requires devious minds to imagine the unimaginable, and it demands both disciplined and creative thinking in preparing contingencies, workarounds, alternatives, and substitutes.
But the time spent on tasks like identifying backup sources of supply or alternative distribution nodes could pay off in spades in the event of disaster. We could write a series of mini-cases to illustrate how real-world companies have benefited from contingency planning, but we'd need much of the current issue's space to do that. Suffice it to suggest that the pharmaceutical company sitting atop the San Andreas Fault benefited from setting up alternative distribution 2,000 miles away. And an East Coast technology distributor did itself a lot of good with a California DC that could fill orders long after the shop had closed in New Jersey. In another example, a major retail chain in Ohio developed a second campus just five miles from the first as a hedge against natural disaster wiping out either one.
The bullet points below illustrate some of the things that leading supply chain managers do to proactively address risks associated with suppliers, customers, and operations:
Suppliers
Ensure that every supplier has contingency plans in place to deal with business interruptions of their own.
Identify substitute or alternative suppliers for all products and materials.
Focus early on alternative sources when a single-source supplier has been selected for whatever reason.
Evaluate the pros and cons of hedging and speculative inventory investment when volatile commodities are in play.
Focus early on alternatives when single or limited sources are located in geographies subject to natural disaster, civil unrest, or military action by foes.
Track supplier financial stability on an ongoing basis.
Create joint ventures in situation that could strain supplier finances.
Consider loans/investments for suppliers in temporary financial difficulty.
Fund raw materials purchases for small suppliers trying to fulfill unusually large orders.
Customers
Draft corporate policies regarding how much business any one customer can command.
Limit the amount of capacity that will be devoted to top tier customers.
Track key customers' financial stability on an ongoing basis.
Monitor/manage customer accounts receivable.
Evaluate the mutual benefit of joint ventures with selected customers.
Consider the pros and cons of greater vertical integration with key customers.
Operations
Manage inventory holdings carefully, carrying sufficient stock to maintain high service levels yet avoiding overbuilding. Consider using postponement whenever practical.
Arrange with peers (or even competitors) for overflow storage space availability.
Invest in one or more distribution centers that can take the heat off a disaster at headquarters.
Build a DC network that can support order fulfillment to a single customer from any one of the facilities.
Stay abreast of industrial space markets against future long-term or temporary needs.
Build extra manufacturing capacity into multiple plant sites to allow for shifts in production.
Design plants consistently for ease of handling volume/product shifts.
Pre-arrange backup from third parties to backstop/augment fleet operations.
Maintain carrier portfolios that permit shifting volumes from one to another (without carrying excess candidates and diluting volume economies).
Be "easy to do business with" in dealings with suppliers, customers, service providers (without being a patsy).
Bottom line
In short, be prepared, be proactive, be fair. You will have gone a long way toward blunting the consequences of the myriad events that can interrupt the flow of goods from your suppliers, through you, to your customers.
But don't stop there. Buy time with these interim tactical moves to seriously prepare for "The Big One," as they say in California. Unfortunately, The Big One is not confined to California. We'll all have Big Ones to face sooner or later.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.