bigpicture
Peter Bradley
Editorial Director
peter@dcvelocity.com
Karen Bachrach
Executive Editor
karen@dcvelocity.com
Toby Gooley
Managing Editor
tgooley@dcvelocity.com
David Maloney
Senior Editor, Special Projects & eContent
dmaloney@dcvelocity.com
Mark Solomon
Senior Editor
mark@dcvelocity.com
Susan Lacefield
Associate Managing Editor
slacefield@dcvelocity.com
James Cooke
Editor at Large
jcooke@dcvelocity.com
Steve Geary
Editor at Large
sgeary@dcvelocity.com
George Weimer
Editor at Large
gweimer@dcvelocity.com
Keisha Christopher
Director of Creative Services
keisha@dcvelocity.com
Jeff Thacker
Director of eMedia
jeff@dcvelocity.com
Columnists:
Clifford F. Lynch
Don Jacobson
Shelly Safian
Kenneth B. Ackerman
Art Van Bodegraven
Barry Brandman
iron butterflies
Gary Master
Publisher
gmaster@dcvelocity.com
Mitch Mac Donald
Group Editorial Director
mitch@dcvelocity.com
Jim Indelicato
Group Publisher
jindelicato@dcvelocity.com
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Tower Square, Number 4
500 East Washington Street
North Attleboro, MA 02760
(508) 695-4530
Subscribe at
www.dcvelocity.com
or call (630) 739-0900
DURING ONE OF THE MANY DISCUSSIONS ON THE FATE OF THE
Big Three automakers recently, one expert interviewed on “Marketplace,”
American Public Media’s evening radio show on business and economics,
commented that “It’s all about the parts.”
She was referring to the ripple effect the failure of General Motors and
Chrysler would have on the entire automotive supply chain and the broader economy.
Jean Jennings, editor-in-chief of Automobile magazine, has a bleak view
of how things would play out if either automaker failed. She told the
show’s Tess Vigeland, “It would mean that no one would be able to build
cars in the United States for at least a year. That means no Japanese, none
of the Europeans that are building, and not Ford because of their great
dependence on a supplier industry that would just
crash and burn. It takes the loss of one part to shut the
whole thing down.”
Wow. I was in my car at the time I heard that, so I
double-checked the text online to make sure I heard
that right. It was all there in the transcript: “It’s all
about the parts. It’s all about the parts,” Jennings said.
Her prediction brought to mind for some reason the
well-worn allegory used to explain how interconnected things are in nature. You’ve heard variations of it: If
a butterfly flaps its wings in a remote jungle, that small
disturbance leads to major effects—storms in the
Pacific, shifts in stresses on species, and so on. While it
is hyperbole, to be sure, the tale keeps getting told
because it has some truth in it.
I hesitate to take something intended to illuminate a principle of natural
science and apply it to business economics, but Jennings’ dire forecast makes
it seem apropos. What happens to Chrysler and GM will have profound
effects on supply chains far beyond the boundaries of those companies.
Now the analogy falls apart, I confess, when you consider how vast both
of those companies are. They are behemoths, not insignificant players. But
their predicaments—and the likely consequences of their failure—suggest
once again the potential risks of complex but closely interconnected supply chains. And what applies to the automotive industry applies to other
industries as well, although perhaps not to the same degree.
Much attention has been given in recent years in these pages and elsewhere to the issue of business resiliency. But even the best laid plans can go
awry in times of economic havoc. The resiliency movement gained
momentum as a response to crucial, but discrete events—terrorist attacks,
hurricanes, supplier failures. Now, they are being tested by an endemic crisis beyond what we might have imagined just a few months ago.
A PUBLICATION OF
Editorial Director
