11 Great Supply Chain Disasters
11 Great Supply Chain Disasters
11 Great Supply Chain Disasters
Case 03
Group 3
12EM03
25NMP26 25NMP47 25NMP48 25NMP51 25NMP54
Arjyama Choudhury
Mahendra Pratap A. Suresh Ajay Singh Pradeep Toppo Narendra Raju Poranki
Drug Manufacturer
Second largest drug exporter in US, 1996 (Sales: $ 5 Billion)
FoxMeyer Disaster
SAPs first high distribution foray
Ran simulations with low volume data Ignored consultants many warning signs & felt trivial DC Automation System - Disaster
Constant Bugs Software fail (hence Stop & Restart) in the middle of the process Deployed hundreds of workers to fix the issues
Unable to handle huge volumes & was unmanageable Tens of millions of $ unrecoverable shipping errors Sold @ $ 80 million after Bankruptcy & lawsuits are continuing
Poor selection of the ERP Software No consideration of other consultants advice Lack of contingency planning No end user involvement (Top down approach)
Implementation
No restructuring of the business process was done Insufficient testing Over-ambitious project scope Lack of end-user cooperation (ignored warnings) No end-user training program
GM
Ford Toyota
GM could have bought both Toyota and Nissan for this amount - CFO, GM
11.7
16.1 57.7
False assumptions - Replacing people with machines could increase productivity Involvement of high cost- high tech un-proven technology Missed essence of Toyotas low-cost production success
JIT inventory, TQM, Attention to production processes, Lean production, Extensive employee training, Close cooperation with suppliers
Consistency of manufacture comes before automation Push supply chain approach: anticipating customers orders
Productivity is not only based on labor costs but the entire production system
However the strategy was dependent on high volumes to drive high level of system utilization, which never materialized.
SRM
ISCM
Disaster
SRM
Disaster
Complex system, mismatch of design considerations Inability to understand the complexity of issues Miscommunication, failure of implementation of systems, not enough test-runs are all causes of failure The stages of implementation were staggered and lost in translation between contractors, vendors, and the airline.
What they should have done:
Proper Communication Airport officials should have made sure that all parties involved with the project were on the same page.
6. TOYS R Us.com
Pre Dec10 1999 Online retailing started to heat up Heavy ads with promise to deliver Christmas orders placed before Dec10 Post Dec10 1999 Tens of thousands of orders Inventory mostly in place Picking, Packing and Shipping is not fast even for closer places Some Employees worked for 49 straight days to fill the order 2000 Unable to fulfill orders in time Co. sent 1000s of Were Sorry mails 2dy before Xmas - ve PR in Media Customers irritated Outsourced on-line retailing to Amazon.com
Analysis
Economy of Scale: by Outsourcing online retail to Amazon.com Toys R Us was inventory systems mastered
o Poor online-specific customer service (tracking orders, )
Take Home
Detailed e-fulfillment capability analysis is required before going online External support may be sought if new technology is used with inexperienced manpower Packing and Shipping are equally critical as Inventory
Packing
Upstream Side Focal Firm
Picking
Downstream Side
Shipping
Problems
Post April1999
System schedule Apr99 slips Rather than waiting till next year, Co. switched over in the summer to the new system before Y2K Resulted in failure of Transactions and Inventory visibility
September 1999
More than $150m
order were lost 3rd Qtr profits dropped by 19% Headlines across business press Stock drops from 57 (Aug99) to 38 (Jan00) Took couple of years to recover
Take Home Phased wise implementation in place of Big bang approach it timed its cutover during its busy season-no slack time available Testing & Simulation could have been done for the processes and systems Risk analysis could have been done beforehand
Upstream Side
Focal Firm
Downstream Side
Problems
Tracking Inventory
Order Fulfillment
Contract manufacturers responsible for final assembly Suppliers of processor chips and optical gear Commodity suppliers all over the globe
Disaster
Disaster
A manufacturer of gloves and slippers - sales of $220 million, 15% net profit, and high growth. Isotoners plant in Manila had highly skilled labour producing 27 million pairs of gloves a year at very low cost. Chasing even low costs:
Manila plant closed and sources production to other Asian locales
Disaster
Take Home
Conservative Demand forecasting will lead to big loss Lack of Planning in Risk Management : proactive plan in place of a reactive. Lacked in both push & pull cycle Vendor Management system cant be ignored in view of Capabilities, Capacity & Constraints. Flexibility is important in supply chain
Disaster
Snap-on Tools - There was failure of order management system which led to loss of $50 million and
operating cost increased by 40%
Tri-Vally Growers
New ERP and Supply chain planning system could not be used and replaced with new one
Norfolk Southern
It was unable to successfully combine its systems with fellow rail carrier Conrail Lost $100 million in business
Conclusion
Even a small disruptions in SRM, ISCM, CRM & integration can lead to
Financial Impact (Bankruptcy) Decline of Stock Price Loss of Brand Equity Ineffective Market coverage
Supporting Workflows
Configuration & Change Mgmt Project Management Environment
References
http://www.personal.psu.edu/fup2/blogs/ba302/200 8/09/11_supply_chain_disasters.html#comment35469
http://www.informationweek.com/570/70iuad2.htm
http://csantaella2011gs.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/ disaster-incubation-theory-adidas-1996-warehousemeltdown/ http://www.logisticalchallenge.com/2009_11_01_arc hive.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_robots
http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~jjb/wh/tidbits/top-scdisasters.pdf
Thank You