es. We therefore quantified the value that reducing
cycle time would generate and demonstrated how
overall lead time and its variability affected cash
flow. Once that had been established, both the
managers’ and their teams’ performance against
specified goals became a stated component of their
compensation.
Detailed solution design and implementation:
The analysis determined that four actions, ranging
from order creation to process accountability, were
necessary to achieve comprehensive performance
improvements. They included:
1. Order generation. The first action was to switch
to a weekly ordering pattern. For both sites, establishing a weekly cadence leveled the flow of containers and enabled the DCs to plan their work-forces appropriately. Smaller, more frequent orders
reduced the number of containers per conveyance.
In turn, bottlenecks at the European DC’s receiving
dock were reduced.
2. Container and carrier prioritization. To reduce
the DC-to-loading-port lead time and improve
reliability, Team X created a new policy for selecting
which full containers of product to ship next. The
decision was now based on two criteria: the carrier’s sailing schedule and a container’s first in, first
out (FIFO) status in the pool. By following the new
FIFO procedures, Team X ensured that full containers were no longer sitting unmonitored at the
container freight station in the U.S. The new FIFO
procedures ensured that containers sailed according
to order precedence. This all but eliminated demurrage charges (assessed by the carrier on containers
held beyond a specified number of days) in the
United States.
3. New metrics. The project team also implemented new metrics that measured the end-to-end
cycle time. These metrics were used to measure
performance and determine compensation at each
DC. They also allowed Team X to engage in benchmarking, trend analysis, and continuous process
improvement.
4. Ownership of process improvements. Individuals
at each DC were assigned responsibility for process performance. This ensured that the end-to-end process remained under control, and if diversions did occur, they could be efficiently corrected.
More importantly, with clear responsibilities and
goals, individual and team performance could be
rewarded.
Institutionalize and close: The client’s instincts
were correct. Excessive variability in the export
process unnecessarily added an extra 24 days to the
order-to-delivery lead time. By cutting out these
excess days, more than US$1.9 million in carrying
costs were eliminated annually, demurrage charges
disappeared, and personnel were freed up to focus
on other tasks. The benefits of a more efficient and
reliable supply chain also included reductions in
safety stock at each node.
Note that in this case, the client’s investment in
the four actions did not require capital outlays or
incremental expenses. All the workflow and policy changes were institutionalized within standard
operating procedures and processes to promote
adherence.
EVERYONE CAN BENEFIT
The experienced project manager who reads this
article may be thinking, “Thanks, I knew all this
already.” That’s entirely understandable. But this
article is not for you! It is for the legions of supply
chain management professionals who are toiling on
projects and are seeking a method for improving
their project outcomes today. (If that sounds like
you, then be sure to read the accompanying sidebar
on six project pitfalls to avoid.)
As research has verified—and as we have repeatedly observed throughout our own years of experience—using a project management methodology
definitely improves outcomes. If you are not already
using a formal methodology, applying even a simple,
straightforward system like the Supply Chain Project
Management Lifecycle will help you solve problems
and unlock your organization’s full potential. c
Notes:
1. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Insights and Trends:
Current Programme and Project Management
Practices, (2007), http://www.pwc.com/us/en/
people-management/publications/current-pro-gram-and-project-mgmt-practices.html.
2. R. Pascale, M. Millemann, and L. Gioja,
“Changing the way we change,” Harvard Business
Review (November–December 1997): 126–139.
PAT ST. LAURENT IS VICE PRESIDENT, NETWORK
SOLUTIONS, AND ROB DINWOODIE IS REGIONAL
MANAGER, NETWORK SOLUTIONS, FOR
EXPEDITORS.