SUPPLY CHAIN STANDARD SEPTEMBER 2008
www.supplychainstandard.com
there is a risk that the‘value chain’actually stops at the
point where data is shared.”
Clive Geldard from Solving International took a
network view.“You need to understand your trading
partner network and how collaboration can fit in. This
might range from the purely transactional (probably
automated), to collaboration around, for example,
event management [product launches, promotions
etc]; or through to a more strategic relationship around
innovation or new product development. It’s important
to understand which bits you are trying to collaborate
on – only then can you assess the business case for
putting the effort in to partnering.”
Williams, though, queried whether partnering was
all about competitive advantage, “or is it something
that everyone should be doing just to take a lot of
noise out of the system?” Philip Hanson recalled
IBM’s early e-business experience whereby, “there
were some stunning partnering deals that would
have saved a fortune – but conformance was only
around 15 per cent”. This prompted the chairman to
ask whether the problem was simply that users of
partnering arrangements are simply unable to use
the information provided?
Partnering
Williams recalled that when Sainsbury’s started
partnering (“at the beginning of the internet age –
which was supposed to be the next big thing but
nobody believed that, or could see the end-game”),
there were typically three-way agreements [supplier,
shipper and retailer] but,“if one party didn’t see it, then
things fell down. Everything was still recorded in the
system, but in actuality there were two systems,
automated and manual. Unless people understand
their roles, collaboration will fall down”.
Simon Bowes from Wesupply said:“Technology is
just the enabler. People feel pushed down the route of
‘collaboration means buying some technology’
but is it more like a marriage? You need
to go to the pictures together, prove
out the relationship first. It
shouldn’t be‘we need to do
some collaboration’– you need
to start small, work on small
projects, simple data
communications, find out if
you are compatible for a bigger
relationship.”After all, he said,
people do this today, all the time,
but they are doing it manually or
PHILIP HANSON
PRINCIPAL
INDUSTRIAL FELLOW,
INSTITUTE OF
MANUFACTURING,
CAMBRIDGE UNI
“There were some
stunning partnering deals
that would have saved a
fortune.”
over the phone – we need to understand how to get
systems to start to work together, and then we can try
to spot the opportunities for bigger collaborations –
and those opportunities won’t always exist!
“Horses for courses,” agreed Frank Peplinski of
Electrocomponents. “There are different levels of
relationship with different suppliers. We’ve got 1200,
we don’t do the same things with the big ones as
we do with the small ones, but we win out if we can
make both sorts more visible to us in the long run.”
Bowes added that, if you are your supplier’s only
route to market, they are likely to be much more
amenable to collaboration.
Ansell also pointed out that the same goes for
partnering with customers.“Pepsi can’t do the level of
collaboration we achieve with the top six with
everyone. We can’t go to every corner
store and say‘we’re going to help
you with your shelf layout’. We
have to understand what we are
going to get out of it –
collaboration has to be for a
purpose that both sides
benefit from. You have to be
clear from the start what both
sides are doing, who is going to
provide the resources, how you
can both simplify processes by
FRANK PEPLINSKI
GENERAL MANAGER
SUPPLY CHAIN,
ELECTRO-
COMPONENTS
“In the UK it is possible, at
least to some extent, to
impose collaborative
methods – that is not the
case everywhere.”
VIVIEN RYAN
HEAD OF
PROCUREMENT
CONSULTING
PRACTICE, IBM
“Get the fundamental
standard processes right,
and then bring in the
enabling technology.”
SCS:ROUND TABLE DEBATE 13
IN ASSOCIATION WITH WESUPPLY
adding systems. But you have to start small.”
Geldard agreed that partnering could be positively
disruptive if it isn’t thought out or it is applied to an
inappropriate relationship.“You have to recognise an
incompatibility early in the relationship – that’s a
mature thing to do, and it leaves you the capacity to
apply partnering where it can do some good.”
A green field operation can of course offer
advantages. Ryan recalled setting up a supply chain
operation in 90 days flat, whereby collaboration as in
‘you will do…we will do…’was set down in the terms
of business from the outset. She said:“Get the
fundamental standard processes right, and then bring
in the enabling technology. It is perfectly fair to insist
on mandatory processes, based on a flexible
technology. Mandating EDI for a sandwich shop is not
fair! But if you can get those process building blocks
right, and fairly based on reasonably accessible
technology, so that you have the connectivity to all,
then you can build further collaboration on top of that.”
Peplinski noted also that there are cultural quirks. In
the UK, he suggested it is possible at least to some
extent to‘impose’collaborative methods – that is not
always or everywhere the case. Williams agreed:“You
can’t force collaboration on people – it didn’t work at
Sainsbury’s. But you can build on cultures – extend the
team, make supply chain part of the team, build trust,
share the pains and gains.
SIMON WILLIAMS
RETAIL SUPPLY
CHAIN SPECIALIST
“You can build on
cultures – extend the
team, make supply chain
part of the team, build
trust, share the pains and
gains.”
To view a Ceros magazine you need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser and have the flash player 8 or higher installed. To install the latest flash player, click the icon above, install the flash plugin and then click here to refresh this page.