It seems that a constant opening paragraph on this blog this year has been the following: As if we did not have enough news on a potential significant supply chain disruption, there is news that…… 

Unfortunately, here we go again, and this time it’s the potential for a swine flu pandemic.  The latest update from Reuters and other media outlets this evening indicates that the World Health Organization moved closer to declaring the first flu pandemic in 40 years, raising the alert level to phase four, which indicates a significantly increased risk of a pandemic. Tragically, 149 human deaths have been reported in Mexico thus far, with probably more to come. The reactions from various countries has already spun into action and range from restricted travel, to outright bans on the sale or import of certain pork products that may have originated from infected areas.  While the spreading of the virus has not been directly linked to eating food products, that hasn’t stopped governments and consumers from forming their own opinions.

The blogsphere has already swung into action commenting on the potential supply chain impacts related to a pandemic, and I won’t attempt to duplicate.  Two insightful posts include an Andrian Gonzalez posting on his Logistics Viewpoints blog, and Jason Busch on his Spend Matters blog.  The common theme of recommendations is to stay informed with current developments, especially if you have suppliers or facilities within the impacted region.  As Jason points out, even if this current outbreak is contained, there are no assurances that another cross-border mutated version does not break out later in the year.

The time is now for supply chain risk management teams to begin their assessments of potential threats to the business, or disruptions that could impact supply or demand for products.  I sounded this warning last year concerning the powdered milk scandal in China, and this year with the salmonella in peanut products incident in January.

Supply Chain Matters will continue to provide additional commentary as well as insights as this crisis unfolds.

Bob Ferrari

Recent announcements regarding the hiring of noted private sector executives to drive needed innovation across the U.S. government got me thinking:  Why not a Chief Supply Chain Officer?

The most recent appointment was that of a Chief Technology Officer as an assistant to President Obama (Wall Street Journal Article).   In his April 18^th weekly address to the nation (video link and transcript), President Obama further named Jeffrey Zients, a leading CEO, management consultant and entrepreneur, to be Chief Performance Officer, along with Aneesch Chopra to serve as America’s Chief Technology Officer. Based on U.S. Senate confirmation, Mr. Zients and Mr. Chopra will join the previously announced Vivek Kundra, Chief Information Officer, in a combined effort to streamline government processes, cut costs, and facilitate best practices throughout our government. 

Don’t misinterpret, driving innovation and new thinking across the U.S. government is certainly long overdue, and I applaud the President for his initiatives, but if the U.S. does want to drive innovation, cost control, and more responsiveness across all agencies, than don’t stop here, include operations and supply chain.  Here are my arguments:

• When you consider all of the federal government’s activities, including all of the military agencies, the U.S. government would probably represent the world’s largest supply chain with overall spend in the billions of dollars.

• It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude an overall umbrella of strategy related to shared services, policies and logistics across the multitude of U.S. government supply chains is sorely lacking. Did you ever stop to consider the overall procurement spending of the combined U.S. government?  How much leverage would that has have on existing or future suppliers?

• The size of the U.S. government morphs the largest transportation and logistics suppliers such as Fedex or UPS, including transportation assets.  Each of these private companies has executive oversight of strategy, operations and technology.  So why not the federal government.

• Finally, think of the possibilities of how advanced supply chain technology, software applications, and supply chain analytics can do if effectively coordinated and deployed across key U.S. governmental agencies.

The appointments of key private sector leaders to drive necessary change is a step in the right direction, but don’t stop there.  A Chief Supply Chain Officer would bolster the President’s plan for restoring a sense of responsibility, transparency and accountability to the U.S. federal budget.  Many companies have leveraged efficiency as well as bolstered agility in their supply chains through dynamic executive leadership.  Why not include such a role for the U.S. government.

What’s your view?  Do you believe that there is a need for a Chief Supply Chain Officer for the U.S.? 

Bob Ferrari