Archive for the ‘Supply Chain Disruption’ Category

« Older Entries

Yet Another Setback for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delivery Program

Friday, August 27th, 2010

There have been many consistent themes in our continuous commentary on Supply Chain Matters and one of the most consistent over these past months has been the supply chain setbacks that have occurred within Boeing’s infamous 787 Dreamliner manufacturing program.  All you need to do is type in ‘Boeing’ or ‘Boeing supply chain’ in this blog’sSearch box, and you get to review the full litany of commentary.  Our latest posting was at the end of July, commenting on the fact that Boeing’s CEO finally admitted the key importance that Boeing has on its supply chain capability, which was a gross understatement of the obvious.

Today there is more disappointing news.  Boeing has now announced that it has to postpone the planned first customer delivery of the Boeing 787 into the middle of the first quarter of 2011.  Mind you, for most of this year, after numerous setbacks and postponements, Boeing’s senior management had been assuring stockholders that first customer ship would occur by the end of 2010.  This latest setback was attributed to engine supplier Rolls-Royce PLC, who’s Trent 1000 engines were specified as power plants for initial customer All Nippon Airways (ANA).  A statement released by Boeing notes that this delay: “follows an assessment of the availability of an engine needed for the final phases of flight test this fall.” The Trent engine suffered a failure while being tested on a test bed in early August.

An article penned by noted aerospace blogger Jon Ostrower on the Flightglobal site notes that compounded issues with workmanship problems with the aircraft’s Alenia Aeronautica-built horizontal stabilizer and its Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines led-up to this latest setback. Ostrower also provides details on the subject engine issues.

The most patient of all related to this ongoing litany has been designated first customer ANA, that has had to deal with an anticipated new addition to its fleet that is now three years behind schedule.  The Wall Street Journal noted in its article that ANA called the delay regrettable but added, “However, we trust that the time will be used to deliver the best possible aircraft in the shortest possible time frame.”

We at Supply Chain Matters express praise to ANA for their eloquence, since ANA has every right to be frustrated at this point. (We refrained from using a more down-to-earth six letter term that begins with a ’p’)  The sole purpose of the supply chain , as we know, is fundamentally serving the best needs of customers.

The delay announcement came very late in the evening, Seattle time, no doubt after a very long day of discussion and deliberation among Boeing’s top management. To Boeing’s credit, it has to deliver a safe and reliable aircraft. We have to wonder, however, as to which Boeing executive (s), if any, will suffer the next fall in this latest setback. Suffice it to say, Boeing’s senior management and supply chain teams remain under a very sensitized looking glass. We all need Boeing to succeed, and soon!

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption, Supply Chain Risk Management | No Comments »

A Barrage of Disturbing News Concerning Breakdowns in U.S. Food Quality

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

August 2010 is quickly turning out to be quite a month for consumer safety concerns regarding the overall safety and quality of U.S. food-related supply chains. Governmental agencies are under the gun to step-up inspection and enforcement and are seeking more jurisdictional power as a litany of urgent alerts permeates news and social media sites.

A lot of attention and commentary have been directed at the massive recall of eggs that was announced on August 13, and now that incident involves over 380 million recalled eggs.  The U.S. FDA reports an ongoing four-fold increase in the occurrence of Salmonella Entertidus that led-up to this recall incident. In our commentary on Supply Chain Matters we questioned why an egg enterprise or agri-business with such a wide distribution of product and private brand volume could experience this type of occurrence without a rigorous quality and inspection program. Former U.S. secretary of labor and University of California Professor Robert Reich penned a scathing litany featured on both The Huffington Post and his own web site, concerning the history of violations involving Jack DeCoster, owner of various nationwide egg farms including the involved Iowa farms.

Adding more to consumer concerns, this week, consumers were alerted to an FDA Class 1 recall involving 380,000 pounds of deli meat products that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  Zemco Industries of Buffalo New York is voluntarily recalling product which was distributed to nationwide Wal-Mart stores, as well as delicatessens, where they were processed into sandwiches. The products in question were produced on various dates from June 18 to July 2, 2010.  The problem was discovered in a retail sample collected by the State of Georgia that tested positive for a strain of listeria. To date, the USDA has received no reports of human illnesses.  According to a Wal-Mart press release, upon learning of the recall by Zemco, all Wal-Mart stores were instructed to remove select Marketside Grab and Go deli sandwiches from store shelves.

The FDA also issued an urgent nationwide recall of frozen mamey fruit pulp sold under the La Nuestra and Goya Foods brands because of an epidemiologic link between an ongoing outbreak of Salmonella Typhi infections and these products. The U.S. CDC reports that at least 9 people in California and Nevada are ill with typhoid fever caused by Salmonella Typhi.  Consumers who have these products in their homes are being urged to discard them immediately and further inquire as to what brand of mamey products are being used in drinks processed at juice stands and retail stores.

A select batch of pistachios and pistachio kernel products that were distributed by California Delights Inc. have been voluntarily recalled due to fears of salmonella contamination.  The products were shipped to two other distributors, Austinuts Wholesale Inc. and Glory Bee Foods, Inc. , and were re-packaged and sold to stores and bakeries within the states of Oregon, Texas and Washington.  Austinuts received two shipments of suspected product that were re-packaged as pistachio kernals, deluxe nut mix, and gourmet nut mix.  GloryBee Foods recalled its Patty brand 5 pound bags of whole raw pistachios, and 25 pound boxes of Special Commodities brand whole raw pistachio kernals.  Keep in mind that a previous nationwide recall of pistachios over a year ago impacted over 80 products and multiple brand names.

August may well turn out to be a watershed month in triggering concerns about the breakdown in quality processes involving global based food supply.  Many have noted and recognized, including the current head of the FDA, that the U.S. government has limited resources to monitor and inspect global-related flows of food products.  My belief is that the overall zeal of supply chain cost reduction efforts across many industries, including those dealing with most sensitive of products, is taking a visible toll in the breakdown of quality and conformance. I’ll be commenting more on this trend in upcoming writings.

In the meantime, the consumer goods and food industry has to self-police itself or risk more daunting regulation and control, as consumers reel from a litany of disturbing events.

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption, Supply Chain Risk Management | No Comments »

Massive Recall of Eggs Unfolds in the U.S.

Friday, August 20th, 2010

There have been growing concerns about the eroding safety of our food supplies and Supply Chain Matters has had far too many postings noting incidents of contamination affecting the safety of food-related supply chains.  I suppose that the latest incident involving the recall of hundreds of millions of eggs in the U.S. should not be a surprise, but the scope and circumstances are again rather troubling.  In this new era of social media explosion, these types of incidents can bring tremendous amounts of negative perception and damage to brands. They also cause too many disruptions for supply professionals.

On August 13, Wright County Farms of Galt, Iowa, an entity associated with DeCoster Farms, voluntarily recalled 228 million “shell eggs” because of the potential for Salmonella Enteritidis contamination. These eggs were distributed to food wholesalers, distribution centers, supermarkets and foodservice companies across eight U.S. states, involving eggs shipped from May 16, 2010.  Thirteen different brand names were involved in this recall, and because whole eggs are the basis for an ingredient in other food products, there are probably unspecified aspects as to the total scope of this recall, and the potential for human illness.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a recent news release outlining the details of this recall.

As I pen this commentary, the recall has now expanded to 380 million eggs involving seventeen U.S. states. All five farms owned by Wright County Farms are under suspicion as sources.  An article on Reuters notes that the amount of eggs recalled are equivalent to nearly all the eggs consumed by all Americans in two days, which is rather a significant exposure. Nearly 2000 cases of salmonella were officially reported to U.S. government agencies from May thru July, a period where 700 cases would have been considered the norm. The U.S. FDA has fifteen investigators currently working on tracking the sources or potential causes of the infection. This recall has significant supply chain implications because uncooked eggs can end up salad dressing, meringue pie or other food or restaurant items.

As was noted in recent recalls such as pistachios, potentially contaminated product has been in the supply chain, undetected until now, for at least three months.  One also has to wonder why an egg enterprise with such a wide distribution of product and private brand volume had this type of occurrence.  The FDA notes that new egg safety standards took effect on July 9 which requires producers to safeguard feed and water supplies and test poultry houses for salmonella, In the case of Wright Farms, one has to speculate if these regulations came too late.

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption, Supply Chain Risk Management | 1 Comment »

Ship Collision Closes Mumbai Port- A Visual on Supply Chain Disruption and Risk

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

I often use visuals in my supply chain risk management workshops, since visuals can have more impact on thinking than sometimes words. Therefore, this visual of a container ship listing at 80 degrees,(shown below)  losing its container cargo and polluting nearby waters with harmful substances certainly caught my attention. Another common tenet of major incidents is that initial reports and assessments are often conflicting, and this incident again brought this situation to light.

On Saturday, August 7th, two vessels collided about 10 kilometers outside the port of Mumbai in India.  The Panamanian-registered MSC Chitra, a container ship, and the break-bulk merchant vessel Khalija-III were involved in this accident. Thirty three crew members were reported rescued.  As is usual for these types of incidents, there were initial conflicting media and governmental reports as to the location and details of the accident and collateral damage.

The MSC Chitra was loaded with more than 2400 containers, 2600 tonnes of oil and 300 tonnes of diesel fuel, and as of yesterday, 300 loaded containers had already sunk into nearby waters.  Some of these containers were reported to include toxic materials such as sodium peroxide. A rather thick oil slick was surrounding the vessel. This ship had sailed to Mumbai from Dubai, and was outbound from JNPT port facility when the collision occurred. The Khalija-III was apparently towed into port after the incident.

The port of Mumbai remains closed as India’s Coast Guard and other governmental agencies work to salvage both the vessel and the spilled containers, some of which are floating in the main ship channel.  The port is expected to be closed for several more days.

India media reports indicate that as of Monday, there were over 80 ships waiting at sea for unloading at berths at the three JN Port terminals, and some are expected to be diverted to other ports.  Indian officials have also filed maritime charges against the two captains of the vessels.

Supply chain disruption and risk is occurring more frequently across the globe.  We recently commented on numerous occurrences in China and other areas of the globe, and it seems that accidents along with oil and chemical spills are becoming all too frequent. The need for a supply chain risk identification and mitigation strategy is ever more apparent.

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption, Supply Chain Risk Management | No Comments »

Quality Controls in Pharmaceutical and Drug Supply Chains- What If Anything Has Been Learned?

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

One of the very first supply chain risk and disruption incidents that the Supply Chain Matters blog noted during its inception a little over two years ago was the incident involving contaminated heparin that occured within China.  We were literally taken aback that product contamination incidents would be occurring in the most regulated and safety sensitive of supply chains.  If these quality breakdown incidents were occurring in this segment, what about other less regulated supply chains?  It did not take long to gather other evidence after the incidents of quality breakdowns in drug-related supply chain continues.

In one of our summary commentaries in March of 2008, Drug Imports from China- Controls are Mandatory, we noted that government inspections cannot be relied upon to be the sole quality control point for drugs, medicines and medical materials being imported from China. At that time, there were over 700 Chinese drug makers registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with just 14 inspections completed.

Two years since, a recent Wall Street Journal article, FDA Faulted in Heparin Case (paid subscription may be required) indicates that U.S. congressional investigators have observed that the “FDA failed to pursue several “specific and credible leads” that might have identified culprits in China” during the 2008 heparin contamination incident.  The overall incident was ultimately linked to 80 deaths impacting the most medically critical area of drug delivery.  This article further notes that “one red flag that the FDA allegedly ignored was that a foreign “respectable regulatory government agency had shared “a significant finding” that a Chinese company was making counterfeit crude heparin to be shipped to the U.S. under another firm’s label.” The FDA never issued a definitive finding as to who or what was responsible for the heparin contamination incident, that in essence there were too many sources of potential contamination. Even more problematic is that the Congressional letter further observes “that the FDA faces legal and linguistic hurdles in conducting probes overseas.”

The obvious question therefore remains, has the pharmaceutical industry learned anything from previous deadly and shocking incidents of contamination?  Have new, more adequate controls been put into effect to both control or detect the presence of contamination from either foreign or domestic production sources before reaching patients? I believe that the answer is sketchy at best.

The newest conflicting evidence involves the incident of McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc., that is working in consultation with the FDA in implementing a voluntary recall of infant and children’s liquid products due to manufacturing deficiencies which may affect quality, purity or potency. The products include certain liquid infant’s and children’s Tylenol®, Motrin®, Zyrtec®, and Benadryl® products which were produced in U.S. facilities. According to an ABC News Report (video) an FDA inspection found a wide range of problems at McNeill’s Pennsylvania production facilities triggering a number of  “red flags”.  In this incident, the FDA actually did its job and called for action by the manufacturer.

As we noted previously, quality and safety will have to come from highly controlled and monitored processes, managed by the brand owners themselves.  Two years after the heparin contamination incident, the U.S. government is still engaged in a finger-pointing exercise and pharmaceutical companies have breakdowns in quality control and monitoring processes. Patients and consumers have to figure out for themselves what drugs are safe, and a highly regulated supply chain shows signs of breakdowns among its various players.  The industry has to solve its problem of quality controls both from domestic and international production sources, and it cannot just punt to the FDA to be the continual watchdog. The FDA has a finite number of resources and cannot be expected to cover all international sources of production.  As noted, the FDA is busy enough just trying to monitor and control domestic incidents.

Sick and dependent patients, children, and all of us, deserve better. The Pharmaceutical industry needs to step-up in efforts in quality monitoring and control, as well as risk detection.

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Product Quality, Supply Chain Disruption, Supply Chain Risk Management | No Comments »

European Air Traffic Attempts to Recover From a Huge Backlog

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

After six rather long days, European air travel has begun a process toward catching up but as noted on our original commentary, the effects of the shutdown are making themselves present across many European focused supply chains. The products most affected are time and value sensitive and include agricultural and food products, high technology and telecommunications components, computer chips, medical supplies and apparel.

At the beginning of 2010, I noted in a blog commentary posted on the Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert Community, observations that inventory levels across the EU were razor thin amid doubts among European business executives regarding the robustness of any business recovery in 2010. That situation has now manifested itself in business media headlines describing the current effect of this flight shutdown.  This morning’s Financial Times article, Pressure grows on supply chains, (free sign-up preview account may be required) noted that some European automobile assembly lines may suspend production due to a lack of key electronic components.  BMW and Nissan indicate that they plan to suspend some European production this week because of disruption of electronic components. Flower producers in Kenya, who ship 82% of flower harvests into the EU countries, are sustaining losses of $2 million per day because they cannot get their products shipped. The Times notes that other industries are stockpiling goods in Dubai where the large air freight terminal is adjacent to one of the world’s largest container terminals. Logistics professionals selected Dubai because of the flexibility to fly goods to cleared European cities, as well as trucking or ocean transport options, depending on expected transit times.  The biggest concern remains real-time visibility as to the status of shipments, and air carriers are already modifying expectations regarding transit times.

It will no doubt take weeks for the entire European air transport sector to gain some sense of normalcy. European logistics professionals will practice their skills in working among various alternative transport networks.

Meanwhile let us all hope that Katla, the other Icelandic volcano does not decide to blow.  That could well be an even more disruptive supply chain incident.

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption | No Comments »

European Air Suspension Has Implication for Critical Supply Disruptions

Friday, April 16th, 2010

One of the most far reaching supply chain disruption events this year may well be underway concerning the effects of the shutdown of all air traffic in certain parts of the continent of Europe.  Large parts of air space around northern Europe are expected to remain closed to air traffic as a result of a moving cloud of volcanic ash that originated from a volcano in Iceland. Thousands of commercial air travelers are currently stranded and ground transportation networks such as bus and rail are currently overwhelmed. About 17,000 flights are impacted for Friday and Germany’s Frankfurt and the UK Heathrow airports, Europe’s busiest have suspended operations for all but emergency flights.

This morning’s Financial Times depicts the situation “as one of the most extensive bans on commercial flights since world war two.” The traveling cloud of ash and debris is expected to migrate to the upper portions of northern Europe this weekend and forecasters are finding it rather difficult to predict when any sense of air traffic normalcy can resume.

On its web site, UPS has acknowledged a disruption to its air traffic and is reminding customers that service guarantees do not apply when transportation networks are disrupted. DHL and FedEx on the other hand seem to remain silent but are certainly impacted.

The obvious impacts for global supply chains dependent on exported shipments will lie in the duration and scope of this disruption.  Since most air shipments tend to be time critical, my sense is that if the situation does not improve by Sunday, firms will experience some economic impacts as air transport carriers try to adjust to the effects of this disruption.  Obviously, this situation bears close watching by procurement planning, logistics and distribution teams.

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption, Transportation and Logistics | No Comments »

Dry Pepper Recall Broadened- How Much Turbulence Can a Supply Chain Sustain?

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Yesterday I penned commentary noting the widespread implications of the ongoing hydrolyzed vegetable protein HVP recall that is permeating food related supply chains.  Not only do supply chain and brand managers have to deal with the upstream effects of HVP, but the ongoing recall involving the use of cracked pepper also took on a broader perspective this week. Talk about a double-whammy! How much turbulence can a supply chain sustain?

Updates published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Food Safety News now indicate that two suppliers of cracked pepper products are now suspected sources of contaminated product. The FDA has been conducting an ongoing investigation involving the supply chain for the imported black and red pepper supplied to deli foods maker Danielle Inc., and expanded the source of contaminated product to other suppliers. Danielle has already voluntarily recalled 1.4 million pounds of its ready-to-eat products because of suspected contamination with the Montevideo strain of salmonella. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicates that 252 people in 44 states have been sickened to date. The two suspected suppliers have been supplying black pepper in large bulk quantities to other food manufacturers, as well as to distributors who package pepper products for consumer use.

Food producers who utilized these designated suppliers of dry pepper must now determine whether their end products must be voluntarily recalled. To make matters even more interesting, those producers who happen to have had products that contained recalled HVP, must additionally consider this recall involving dry pepper, which may lead to a broadened scope of recalled products.  Again, not exactly good for relieving consumer fears about the safety of processed food products.. For its part, the FDA wants to take a closer look at the handling of spices from farm to table, in essence, the entire food supply chain.

These ongoing incidents involving basic spices and commodities in foods should be an alarming wake-up call to both food producers and other manufacturers regarding the scope and exposure to supply risk. Risk is not one dimensional.  It involves supplier viability, supplier quality, value-chain processes and the brand itself. 

Once again, our community mantra continues: Does your company or organization have a cross-functional supply chain risk management process in place? You had better get one in-place, and soon.

 Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption, Supply Chain Risk Management | No Comments »

HVP Recalls Begin to Permeate Food Supply Chains- Risk Awareness is Mandatory

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

At the beginning of March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that a form of salmonella had been found in hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP) which was being supplied by Basic Food Flavors of Las Vegas. No reported illnesses or deaths have been traced to the subject HVP thus far, but the FDA and individual food companies need to insure end-products that include this recalled HVP incorporate production processes that involve a certain process of cooking to kill the bacteria.  Otherwise, according to the FDA, the end-products should be recalled.

An initial New York Times article reported that thousands of processed foods, from soups to hot dogs, contain the HVP that is suspected of being contaminated with salmonella.  Our initial Supply Chain Matters commentary on this ongoing incident noted how potentially widespread the effects of this recall may be across food related supply chains. We also again stressed the critical importance that supply chain traceability and risk mitigation have become required process capabilities, and how important technology helps in supporting such capabilities.

The first major food manufacturer to quickly respond to this incident was Procter and Gamble, that manufactures and distributes Pringles brand potato chips. P&G voluntarily recalled two specific flavors of Pringles which were affected by the HVP recall.

As I pen this posting, there are currently 159 different products listed on the FDA web site as under voluntary recall, and the list is growing every day.  The categories are broad, ranging from bullion and gravy mixes, to sauces, soups, ready-to-eat and processed food products.  Thus far, product brands include well-known names, such as Dean’s, Durkee, French’s, Herbox, McCormack, Pringles and others.  Private label brands are not immune, including CVS, Kroeger, Publix and Trader Joe’s.  Institutional brands sold to restaurants and food service customers are also included.  In other words, when the dust does settle, this will be a far-reaching disruption involving multitudes of different product supply-chains, because the source ingredient is included in so many different products.

Consumer product companies now have to deal with even more negative perceptions by consumers on the overall safety of the food supply chain.  Just queerying any search engine on the topic of HVP recall will bring together a collage of visual images of food brands that are part of this recall.  This of course is not the way companies want their brands represented, and to make matters even more interesting, information is now being disseminated regarding what HVP really is.  A posting on the Good for You blog on MedBroadcast notes that HVP is the disguised version of monosodium glutamate (MSG), to which many people are extremely sensitive.  The composition of MSG in HVP is such that the existence of MSG does not have to be noted on the product label.

As with previous incidents, this large-scale recall involving HVP will continue to unfold in the coming weeks and months. Brands and supply chains will again be tested.  Supplies will be purged and brands will have to reinvigorated with higher profile marketing.  If there is one key takeaway, there should be no excuse for any consumer products oriented company not to have an active supply chain risk awareness and mitigation plan in place.

Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Industry Specific Supply Chain Issues, Supply Chain Disruption, Supply Chain Risk Management | No Comments »

Service Level Erosions in Ocean Transport- Have supplier relationships broken down?

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Earlier in the week this blog provided commentary and reaction to a recent financial news headline that the world’s largest shipping line, A.P. Moller Maersk, reported its first financial loss in the company’s history.  I noted that to anyone involved in supplier sourcing, procurement and logistics, the news is of little surprise given the massive after-effect on global trade as a result of the global recession.  I further concluded that a U.S. exporter should remain in the drivers seat for contracting so-called backhaul ocean transportation, freight moving from the U.S. to Asian or European ports.  Apparently, this does not turn out to be the case, and something is amiss in terms of customer and supplier relationships.

 Today’s Wall Street Journal features a well-written front page story, Export Revival Threatened By Shipping Bottlenecks (paid subscription required), that outlines a landscape of frustrated shippers attempting to ship bulk goods to Asian markets in a timely and cost efficient manner. According to the story: …”producers (U.S. based) of everything from hazelnuts to cardboard are complaining they can’t get their goods shipped in a timely manner.” Shipping delays of three to four weeks have been common, and shippers have become increasingly frustrated with ocean carrier service levels. The picture seems to be one where the ocean carriers want to defy the notion that the customer should be the focal point in determining acceptable service levels. Another concern brought in this article is that some U.S. ports lack the capacity to handle larger outbound shipping activity, having instead placed a primary focus on servicing large volumes of imported container laden volumes.

The picture is one where severe drops in global trade destined to U.S. and European ports has caused ocean carriers to not only severely idle fleet capacity, but also slow down the cruising speeds in existing ships in order to save on fuel.  That is like an international airline indicating to a prospective passenger that because the airline has severe financial difficulties the previous eight hour transpacific journey has been extended to 10 hours, so deal with it.  Air passengers have the option to select far more options in other air carriers, not so for ocean carriers.  We called attention in our previous commentary that the CEO of A.P. Moller Maersk indicated that carriers have too long neglected the less-profitable “backhaul” shipment of goods from U.S. ports, and that there would subsequently be a renewed focus on more customer service.  That seems to be the understatement of the year.

It seems to me that ocean carriers, as well as shippers, have lost fundamental perspectives regarding solid supplier and buyer relationship building, and it would be interesting to hear additional commentary from our readers.

Two questions come to mind that may provide more perspective to this ongoing problem.

In the end, do ocean carriers exist solely to serve their shareholders, or to serve shippers? Are cutbacks in service levels, fuel surcharges or fleet capacity impacting the cost and service level needs of shippers? Have these carriers become too arrogant in their view of shipper relationships?

Conversely, shippers have also been mandated to respond to the effects of severe recession. There has been resurgence in the application of reverse auctioning and other hard nose procurement negotiating practices directed toward services-related procurement, including transportation. Has this trend soured any notions of supplier collaboration and mutual trust-building?  Have procurement practices subsumed any notions of building long-term carrier relationships?

Share your views and let us collectively ascertain what the real problems may be.

 Bob Ferrari

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Supply Chain Disruption, Transportation and Logistics | No Comments »

« Older Entries