The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets are reporting that one of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner test aircraft had to make an emergency landing this afternoon in Laredo, Texas, after the crew reported smoke in the cabin during a test flight. The crew of between 30 and 40 Boeing flight-test employees on the plane were forced to utilize the jet’s emergency slides to evacuate the aircraft. . Emergency crews on the ground responded and extinguished the remainder of flames inside the aircraft, with one minor injury reported.

WSJ notes that according to a person familiar with the matter, as the jet was flying at 1,000 feet during the approach to Laredo, the Dreamliner’s crew reported a fire, possibly in the plane’s rear electronics bay. Subsequently, the 787′s emergency auxiliary power unit, known as a ram air turbine, deployed as a result of at least a partial power failure. Some of the plane’s automated systems, including the auto-throttle and cockpit flight displays and electronics-assisted flight controls, were affected, this person said. The pilots also canceled their instrument flight plan and proceeded to land under visual flight rules, possibly because some the flight instruments were knocked out.

While Boeing has predictably declined comment regarding this incident, Supply Chain Matters can’t help but speculate that this is yet more disappointing news surrounding endless delays in the Dreamliner program.   The latest delay was announced in August involving an uncontrolled failure on one of the designated Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines on a test bed in England, along with other component related issues.  That delayed first customer ship to an anticipated Q1-2011.

The WSJ and other media are reporting that Rolls-Royce, who’s Trent 1000 engine was involved in last week’s mishap involving a Qantas Airways Ltd. Airbus A380 superjumbo jet in-flight failure, issued a statement saying the Airbus incident was unrelated to problems with the Dreamliner’s engine.

More news will certainly surround this breaking development so stay tuned to the Supply Chain Matters blog for further commentary.

I’m a bit backlogged in reporting on recent vendor briefings and this posting is an opportunity to comment on a briefing with Josh Green, CEO of Panjiva.  This supplier intelligence provider offers intelligence tools available for both buyers and suppliers, and has been growing at a double-digit rate.  The Panjiva platform is one where information on suppliers, supplier shipments and various customers are all aggregated in an information portal.  Searching for background information related to global, country-specific or even item and customer specific criteria are supported.  Examples of the application of the Panjiva tool include scenarios like searching for China based suppliers who have certain industry certifications, or supply certain industry key customers.  Other search criteria might include suppliers who have had increased incidents of quality returns, or who may be in criteria for financial risk.

Early this year, Panjiva changed its pricing model from a user-based, to a subscription-based offering model. This now affords customers the ability to have no limit to the number of users that can take advantage of this intelligence platform, This change, however, presented another challenge, that being a easier means to accelerate user interaction and adoption with the platform., without having to add large numbers of customer support resources.

To respond to this need, Panjiva has now augmented its platform with ‘Google-like’ semantic search capabilities, which I had the opportunity to view in various scenario like queries.  We have previously commented on this blog regarding the introduction of more sophisticated information search and business intelligence tools making their entry into supply chain processes.  Technology vendor such as Endeca, Oco Business Analytics and some others have entered the supply chain landscape offering analytical information discovery tools that allow users to self-navigate utilizing their own intuitive search capabilities. We commented in February on how such tools could have been utilized in the past Toyota sudden acceleration incidents.

It was great to again view how the power of this type of technology can be harnessed specifically in supply chain and strategic sourcing process needs.

Bob Ferrari

There has been yet another recall of packaged eggs in the U.S., which is in itself disturbing, but also brings out important aspects of supply risk concerning supply chain custody and brands.

Cal-Maine Foods Inc., one of the leading egg sellers and distributors in the U.S. was notified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that one of the Company’s suppliers, Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC, based in Croton, Ohio, had a routine environmental study sample which tested positive for Salmonella Enteritidis (SE), the same strain involved in the massive August recall of eggs. Cal-Maine purchased approximately 24,000 dozen unprocessed eggs from Ohio Fresh, which were processed and re-packaged by the Cal-Maine’s Green Forest, Arkansas, facility between October 9 and 12, 2010. The potentially contaminated eggs were packaged under four separate brands ( James Farm, Springfield Grocer, Sunny Meadow, Sun Valley) and distributed to food wholesalers and distributors in eight U.S. states.

A Los Angeles Times Business article further indicates that Ohio Fresh Eggs has some financial ties to Austin “Jack” DeCoster, whose Wright County Egg was one of two Iowa farms involved in the massive August recall of potentially Salmonella contaminated eggs.  The LA Times article further notes that the Oho Agriculture Department had indicated earlier this year that DeCoster was still an investor in Ohio Fresh Eggs, and neither company could be reached for comment.

This latest egg-related recall reinforces some rather important aspects on which entity holds the burden of product risk and/or liability.  It is also another clear reminder that in the case of supply chain distribution, your supplier’s quality issues are ultimately your own, especially when your brands are involved. Cal-Maine’s marketing tag line is the most obvious reminder: “When it comes to eggs, we are at the center of it all.”

A Cal-Maine Foods statement confirms the recall and indicates that the company was only notified by the FDA on November 5^th and re-iterates that the eggs were not produced from Cal-Maine flocks.  Cal-Maine distributes its egg products to approximately 29 U.S. states and the recall reinforces that fact that this company’s supply chain includes other egg producers.  An CBS News article published in late August notes that in the previous egg recall incident, Cal-Maine received 32 truckloads, roughly 800,000 dozen eggs from two suspect Iowa egg farms in the period between April 9 and August 19, all of which were included in the August product recall. At this point, we now  know of at least two incidents, and that over one million eggs have had to be recalled by Cal-Maine, most of which originated in facilities not controlled by that company.

There are certainly other larger issues at play, including how big is big, the breakdown of quality in the egg production supply chain, and consumer trust of distribution brands.  This would include private brands.

One thing is certain, supply risk is an important aspect and a growing concern to many current supply chains.

What’s your view?  Which participant in the supply chain holds the ultimate responsibility for product quality and safety?  I’ll bet I know the answer.

Bob Ferrari