Agilent Technologies' "control tower"—an information hub linking the instrument maker with its suppliers to provide inventory visibility—has helped the company deftly model parts availability, manage order promising, and counteract parts shortages during a natural disaster.
James Cooke is a principal analyst with Nucleus Research in Boston, covering supply chain planning software. He was previously the editor of CSCMP?s Supply Chain Quarterly and a staff writer for DC Velocity.
In 2011, when the worst flooding in decades swamped Thailand, many of the manufacturing plants that produce electronic parts and components in that country were forced to suspend operations. That left many of their customers—mostly large international manufacturers—without critical parts needed to fill orders. But not Agilent Technologies Inc. Although Agilent's contract manufacturer in Thailand was out of commission, the testing-equipment maker was able to fill most of the orders that normally would have included items produced by that supplier. That's because Agilent had a resource its competitors didn't have: a "control tower" it had installed a year earlier for its Electronic Measurement Group (EMG).
The control tower is an information hub that links Agilent with its suppliers to provide visibility of the inventory in its supply chain, at both the company's own locations and at the sites of its contract manufacturers and their suppliers. The control tower's staff uses simulation software to model the impact of parts shortages on production and devise a plan to solve any problems. In the case of the Thai floods, the company used that software to rapidly identify shortages so that alternative sources for parts could be quickly found, or in some cases to permit the redesign of parts. "The control tower helps us to be able to capture all components during a shortage so we can come up with risk-mitigation actions," says Michael Tan, Agilent's EMG Supply Chain Operations Director.
Inventory unknowns
Agilent Technologies was created in 1999 when Hewlett-Packard spun off its test and measurement instrument business from its computer business. Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Agilent Technologies reported US $6.9 billion in revenue in 2012. The Electronic Measurement Group (EMG) is one of four groups within the company, and it's the most profitable one, with US $3.3 billion in revenue in 2012. EMG sells products like oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, and network analyzers that are used in such industries as aerospace, defense, communications, and computers. The group has 9,000 customers worldwide. (In September 2013, Agilent Technologies announced plans to make the Electronic Measurement Group a separate, publicly traded company.)
To make 5,000 different types of electronic instruments, EMG works with 1,100 suppliers, 52 percent of which are based in Asia. Although the measurement group operates some of its own factories, it relies on strategic contract manufacturers to make 70 percent of its products. On average EMG ships 70,000 units each month to customers.
Agilent's inbound supply chain spans the globe and requires the coordination of parts flows between its own factories and those of its contract manufacturers. For example, Agilent technology centers in the United States and Germany make integrated circuits. Contract manufacturers in Asia incorporate those components into what Tan refers to as printed-circuit assembly boxes. But Agilent's main manufacturing plant, in Penang, Malaysia, also incorporates the integrated circuits into microcircuit assemblies found in electronic instruments.
All of those factories, both in-house and contract, keep their own inventories of parts to support production. Each plant also has its own suppliers, which keep their own stockpiles of inventory.
The whereabouts and availability of inventory in Agilent's extended global supply chain became a concern in 2009. That's when the economic downturn subsided and business began to pick up again. Cutbacks in production and the demise of some suppliers during the recession had led to parts shortages throughout the electronics industry. As a result, when Agilent needed to ramp up production, it "had some challenges" in locating parts that were in short supply, Tan says.
Compounding the problem was the fact that Agilent needed accurate information about parts availability from its suppliers in order to make delivery commitments to key customers and win business, yet it had no way to get that critical information quickly. One reason was that Agilent, its contract manufacturers, and their suppliers were using different information systems. While Agilent relies on Oracle's technology to keep tabs on production, many of its contract manufacturers and suppliers use enterprise resource planning software from SAP. Because the different information systems in the supply chain were not linked, if Agilent wanted to determine whether it had all the necessary inventory to make an order delivery-time commitment to a customer, it could take three to four weeks to get an answer from all the parties involved.
Simulation saves the day
To solve this problem, Agilent decided to construct a control tower that would give the instrument maker visibility into inventory holdings down to the supplier level in as many nodes in its supply chain as possible. For this vertical supply chain integration project, it bought RapidResponse software from Kinaxis, a vendor of enterprise supply chain software solutions. Besides facilitating supply chain visibility, the software handles demand, supply, and inventory planning as well as what-if analyses, among other functions.
In 2011, Agilent got the control tower up and running with three contract manufacturers and two of its own technology center facilities. Since that time, the control tower's scope has expanded in stages. Currently, it extends to five contract manufacturers and five Agilent-owned sites. Three of the contract manufacturers are in Malaysia, one is in Thailand, and one is in California. Agilent's own facilities linked to the tower include its plants in Penang, Malaysia, and in Santa Clara, California. The tower is also linked to technology centers located in California and Colorado in the United States, and one in Germany.
Staff members who oversee the control tower's operation work out of Agilent's main facility in Penang. There are two teams involved: one conducts the analysis, while the other manages data governance to ensure that all linked locations provide correct, high-quality information.
The suppliers transmit information to the tower on a daily basis. As of this writing, the control tower has visibility of more than 94 percent of all parts used in the EMG supply chain. The tower uses this information to create a complete picture of Agilent's supply chain, which the company employs to manage both daily operations and crisis situations. The information is displayed on computer screens formatted in customized worksheets that show purchase orders, plan, and supply allocation. Tan says the customized worksheets allow Agilent to monitor part-by-part shortages throughout different levels of the supply chain via weekly projected balances based on demand.
The control tower is routinely used to simulate the impact of a major sales event on production. "Our sales engineers want to be able within a half day to come back to a customer and say whether we can support them and get the product in a four-week shipment time," Tan explains.
Whenever a major customer deal is in the offing, the control tower helps Agilent to determine an accurate commitment date for product delivery. It does so by simulating the parts requirements. The simulation allows Agilent to check with its manufacturers and suppliers to determine parts availability, including whether production would encounter any parts shortages. If the simulation reveals possible problems with the availability of components, Agilent can then work with its suppliers to source the part on the open market or obtain it from other distributors. In some cases, the company has re-engineered the product to use an alternative part when the original version was unavailable.
Tan says that the control tower can very quickly predict the revenue impact from any possible deal as well as the company's ability to meet a delivery date before promising it to a customer. "Because of the wide range of products, it was quite a challenge to do this manually in the past within a short time," he says. "The control tower lets you know how much you have on hand and how fast you can get these parts into the factory that produces the product for the final customer."
Since setting up the control tower, Agilent has speeded up its response time for customer order promises. In the past, turnaround time for demand propagation took three to four weeks, as the instrument maker had to contact manufacturers and suppliers involved in a particular order and wait for their responses to determine parts availability for production. Now turnaround time is a week or less.
The control tower also helps Agilent with crisis management, such as when the floods in Thailand affected its contract manufacturer there. The tower simulates the constraints facing a manufacturer or supplier when an unforeseen event disrupts the supply chain. It enables a bottoms-up modeling through the supplier levels to identify the total impact of a disruption on sales orders, forecasts, and safety stock for the various products. It also lets Agilent prioritize the allocation of constrained materials to meet critical demand on the basis of the greatest business benefit. "Because of this tool we are able to quickly simulate gaps [in supply]," said Tan.
As a result of this capability, Agilent was able to minimize disruption for its customers during and after the floods. In some cases it found other sources for parts that it normally would buy from its Thai supplier. In other cases, it redesigned the product or engaged in "value engineering," a technique that involves identifying acceptable substitute parts.
A winning concept
For the control tower to provide inventory visibility, Agilent's supply chain partners must furnish clean, accurate data. The original owner of the data—whether it's Agilent's procurement team or a supplier—is responsible for accuracy and timely updates. "When new products are introduced, the bill of materials needs to be set up correctly at each level," Tan says. "That's why governance is important. Any change needs to be communicated throughout all levels of the supply chain."
Because the control tower needs accurate data for its parts calculations, Tan says, the company must work closely with contract manufacturers and their suppliers. For any data-sharing effort to succeed, he adds, all parties involved must benefit. "It is very important to collaborate to ensure that the data sharing will help [manufacturers and suppliers] as well," he says. "They have to realize that they are linking to systems to let them know their shortages. Then they can see the benefits of linking to the control tower."
Given Agilent's positive experience, would Tan recommend that other companies with complex supply chains consider the use of a control tower to manage inbound supply? He's a firm believer in the concept. For one thing, he says, end-to-end supply chain visibility on a single platform will give companies the ability to manage their supply chains across regions and across time zones. "This will help the company to perform proactive and effective collaboration with suppliers and also enable speed in decision making in the shortest turnaround time," he says. That's key for avoiding unnecessary inventory and expediting costs. But just as importantly, he adds, "it will enable the company to win deals as well as provide customers the best customer experience in terms of delivery responsiveness."
This story first appeared in the Quarter 4/2013 edition of CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly, a journal of thought leadership for the supply chain management profession and a sister publication to AGiLE Business Media's DC Velocity. Readers can obtain a subscription by joining the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (whose membership dues include the Quarterly's subscription fee). Subscriptions are also available to nonmembers for $34.95 (digital) or $89 a year (print). For more information, visit www.SupplyChainQuarterly.com.
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.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."