Once again, I’m penning a posting related to product contamination and recall, and again it involves the cascading supply chain effects of an incident of suspected forms of E.Coli contamination which can cause serious food borne illness.

The latest incident involves a voluntary recall of 420,000 pounds of beef products produced by JBS Swift Beef Company of Greeley Colorado.  According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture press release this recall was expanded because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has an ongoing investigation into 24 illnesses in nine U.S. states. The beef products were produced back in April, and JBS Swift conducted the recall out of an abundance of caution.  As can sometimes happen with recalls involving food products, certain production also makes it way into other supply networks, namely private label branded products.  In this specific case, the CDC has acknowledged that meat may have been re-processed into ground beef and other products, making it difficult to trace actual identity markings for consumers. To no surprise, Smith’s Food and Drug Stores, a division of Kroger has also issued a similar recall warning involving its store brand and store-packaged beef products, including that processed into ground beef and other products.  If you plan on a barbeque this Fourth of July holiday, make sure you check the various web sites that identify the impacted products.

I’ve noticed from my various food industry news feeds that the industry has been reacting to a significant shift among retailers and wholesalers in offering more private branded products.  This shift has been a response to consumer trends in purchasing more affordable or value-based products.  I’m beginning to suspect that these same retailers may not quite understand the ramifications of supply chain disruption that can be brought on by a significant product recall. But alas, this may be the subject of a future post.

In the other ongoing incident, on June 19, Supply Chain Matters posted its first commentary on the voluntary recall involving Nestle Toll House cookie dough  which was also a suspected E.Coli contamination. To update readers on that incident, the CDC now reports that 72 people in 30 U.S. states have been associated with this outbreak. Of this number, 34 people have been hospitalized, and 10 have been diagnosed with a form of kidney disease. The U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA)  has now confirmed that it has found E.Coli 0157:H7 in an unopened sample of pre-packaged dough within Nestlé’s Danville Virginia plant.  .  Nestle USA has also acknowledged this finding and continues to cooperate with FDA officials to identify the root cause of this contamination.  In my view, Nestle was very wise to take the initiative to voluntarily recall these products.  In its press release, Nestle smartly outlines the timeline of its response, and attempts to insure its customers that other Toll House branded products are not involved. 

The latest article from the local Danville News indicates that the FDA had found no traces of the bacterium after  conducting exhaustive inspections of both the cookie dough production equipment and the workers.  The FDA also took samples of all the component ingredients and they have come back negative.  The investigation has apparently shifted upstream in the supply chain with a joint inspection of the flour supplier underway.

This cookie dough incident has been a concern to industry followers since E.Coli is usually traced to animal bacterium in cattle, and seems highly unusual in flour and dough products

Besides the obvious concerns we all have regarding the overall safety of our food products, these constantly occurring incidents present some interesting questions.  Which brand suffers the most, and which party bears the most responsibility when a disruption brought on by food contamination cascades itself through various supply chains? Whose reputation suffers the most?

 Share your thoughts.

 Bob Ferrari

An opinion article penned by Ashwin Rangan of MarketShare Partners, Understanding Tomorrow’s CIO’s, appearing on SandHill.com, caught my interest.  The premise of the article is that the next generation of top technology executives will be a different breed, with a different focus of management competencies and traits.  This article was written primarily to inform software and technology companies on how to best market their products to this new breed of manager.

I’d like to add some of my own thoughts, building on Ashwin’s perspectives.  His article points to key competencies in which tomorrow’s technology leaders will differ from those in the past:

Business-driven vs. brand-driven goals, as well as open-mindedness- namely that software applications that are brought into the company must no longer just pass the “brand name” test, but also provide a strong value proposition which will either reduce cost, grow revenues, improve productivity, or contribute to all three combined.  It seems to me that this implies a bit more open-mindedness to exploring “best-of-breed” type applications to address specific supply chain business needs, or more tendencies to evaluate SaaS, Cloud Computing, mobile or other forms of outsourced IT infrastructure models to provide more efficient IT cost structures. In my view, the new CIO will no longer function as the “gate-keeper” of technology, but rather the business advisor and change agent that balances business needs to logical technology options.

Business background- the premise here is that rather being the most tech savvy executive for the organization, the need may instead focus on the being the most knowledgeable in understanding business process and decision-making needs.  Rather than the expert on “how” IT architecture and systems are to be implemented, it may instead be the “what and why” of how specific business processes needs can be aligned to overall technology deployment options and plans.  Last summer, I penned a posting titled CIO’s as Supply Chain Leaders, where I shared my beliefs that in certain organizational situations of large-scale supply chain transformation, it may make sense to have an executive skilled in broad supply chain management and operations leading the CIO function.

In terms of product marketing’s ability to connect with the new breed of CIO, Rangan points to what I believe may be some flawed advice. 

Rather than helping the new CIO to be a change agent, I would argue that this executive wouldn’t have the position unless he/she had demonstrated competencies to drive change.  Instead, product marketing should be helping the CIO to articulate the best value proposition for the proposed technology, as well helping with the internal educational needs for the organization.  The focus should be on building educational awareness among the broader functional audience on the potential business and process benefits of the technology.

The second tip, understanding the business needs is a two-way focus.  Too often, many smaller software companies try to instill their go-to-market sales model on broad categories of customers.   I’ve found that no two businesses are alike, and that an industry specific or domain approach is far more productive in connecting with the specific needs of that business.  If you are positioning supply chain related technology, you had better understand the buying persona of each of the supply chain functional teams and be able to assist those teams in understanding the specific product, business, and organizational benefits of the technology. This implies a pre-sales team that has broad or sometimes deep supply chain domain knowledge.

Finally, making the CIO look smart and engaged is a no-brainer.  Technology players like IBM and others have been practicing this tenet for years. But too often, over zealous sales people cross organizational lines to close a sale, and sometimes alienate the functional teams who must implement both changed business practices as well as the new technology. The focus should instead be on insuring that a customer’s entire leadership team is successful as well as insightful in their decision. Never ignore a customer, especially after the sale.  A customer’s success is your success, not the other way around.

Bob Ferrari