This supply chain management industry analyst recently had the opportunity to attend the Connected Things 2017- Accelerating the Adoption & impact of IoT for People, Places & Things conference, sponsored by the MIT Enterprise Forum of Cambridge. This Supply Chain Matters posting shares key highlights, observations, and insights this author gained from the various sessions.
This was a one-day conference designed to exchange the latest thought leadership and information exchange regarding the current state of Internet of Things (IoT) technology strategy and deployment. The conference, as noted in the dedicated conference web page, included a format of keynote presentations from senior technology executives and market influencers along with seven different panel discussions directed at key IoT challenges and topics.
From this author’s lens, the content was outstanding and very timely, and brought forward consistent themes related to this growing area of technology interest. Judging from the overflow crowd of conference attendees traveling from different regions and just before a forecasted major snowstorm across the New England region, IoT is obviously a top-of-mind topic within many an industry setting, including industry supply chains.
The opening keynote delivered by Harel Kodesh, Vice President, Predix and CTO, GE Digital provided a very timely context for how a manufacturing company such as General Electric is aggressively moving toward a journey to be an Industrial Internet and digital transformation company. This blog has provided several prior commentaries related to GE Digital and its development and rollout of the Predix operating system, and Kadesh’s keynote brought this all together. As an example, GE declares that it will have upwards of 68,000 of its jet engines and 10,000 turbines connected by Predix in three years. Another GE Digital initiative looks to railway locomotives serving as a “data center on wheels” in areas of data sharing not only on equipment and train operation but on the sensing and reporting of rail right of way data, such as the condition of agricultural farms and fields. An important key message reinforced by GE is that upwards of up to 40 percent of operational performance data generated by equipment is spurious, subject to cleansing or deletion. That reinforces the need for the Edge level, or as GE refers to the Digital Twin system, to serve as an actual data rationalization compute mode. We view this as a very important consideration for any form of supply chain or service management focused IoT digital transformation initiative.
The keynote from David Friend, CEO of BlueArchive, and former founder of Cloud storage provider Carbonite, provided clear reinforcement that Cloud based data storage will indeed transform to a utility model in the not too distance future. The current impediment is a generally accepted standard data exchange API for IoT driven processes to integrate with. Friend’s remarks further reinforced the need for operational data cleansing at the Edge layer, along with today’s overriding concerns for increased data security standards as well as increased data speeds across all the levels involved in an IoT deployment. As an example, Carbonite today manages 500 million storage requests daily.
SAP executive Alan Southall, Vice President and Head of SAP IoT Predictive Maintenance, reinforced that engineers currently do not trust raw data emanating from an asset, and that SAP recently launched SAP Leonardo to be an IoT platform data management system to manage and mitigate semantic data flows from the physical asset to actual business applications. (This analyst recently received an SAP briefing regarding SAP Leonardo design and capabilities) SAP is further working with pilot customers on areas such as machine learning, as well as automated analytics. Southhall also reinforced the message that Edge systems require military grade data security.
We managed to sit-in on three separate panel discussions including one focused on IoT Analytics, Industry 4.0 impacts on legacy industries and the all-important, physical, and cyber security viewpoints.
Regarding an IoT analytics framework, we sensed a consensus viewpoint outlining a tiered analytics strategy, with smart assets and connected devices managing local processing and Cloud-based platforms serving as additional data aggregators and insights engine at high levels of more predictive event context. Regarding the long-term impact of analytics, panelists concurred that industry transitions are already underway but additional challenges need to be addressed in how to better automate data consolidation and aggregation, and yes, the need for more comprehensive network-wide data security practices and standards. Noted was that a lot of industry development right now is focused on Edge systems, namely decisions needing to be made at the machine or manufacturing layer, an initial step in helping organizations to be prepared for later enterprise-wide, IoT digital transformation efforts. A reality remains that most machine-level data resides in industrial environments primarily protected behind-the-firewall.
We were very pleased to hear one panelist declare: “Don’t give me more data- give me smarter data.”
One other theme expressed on this blog in multiple prior commentaries, is the belief that, like other data-focused technology automation transformations of the past such as RFID adoption, ultimate ownership of data remains a big challenge yet to be sorted out. For instance, original equipment manufacturers or digital services providers are positioning strategies based on aggregation and ownership of equipment data for business process management or digital transformation business model needs, while data generators of the equipment declare that actual customers already own such data. One example mentioned by a panelist is within agriculture settings, where seed providers have been collecting vast amounts of data to provide managed services related to crop yields, while not making such data available to the same specific farms without a bundled service. In our blog commentaries, we have portended similar conflicts yet to play out in industries such as commercial aircraft, where airlines will claim ownership of their own operational performance data. Obviously, a period of transition and sorting out must evolve.
Again, this was a beneficial and informative conference addressing a transformative but still young technology with more iterations to come. Conferences such as these helps in cutting through some of the hype, focusing on key challenges and needs, while providing learning from those in multiple roles of moving such transformation forward.
© Copyright 2017. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.
Boeing made a senior management change this week, recruiting a General Electric Aviation Services executive to be the new head of the Commercial Aircraft division. This executive move, which is effective immediately, likely has manufacturing, supply chain and services management implications from two perspectives.
Kevin McAllister previously served as the head of GE’s Aviation Services business unit which is the customer support arm of the aircraft engine unit. Thus, McAllister brings an aftermarket services perspective. His background is one of design engineering, having served in roles of engine component development and services sales.
According to statements from Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg, the aerospace manufacturer sought an executive with “fresh ideas” to lead in efforts to triple services related revenue over the next decade. In conjunction with this executive change, Boeing further indicated that it plans to centralize management of the service businesses related to defense and space operations as well as commercial aircraft.
Supply Chain Matters believes that the above moves signify intent by Boeing to expand revenue and profitability growth across managed services and such efforts will likely include leveraging of Internet of Things (IoT) and connected devices as technology underpinnings of such efforts. Boeing had previously announced its intent to leverage more revenues from service parts which decreases revenue opportunities from certain suppliers.
As the new head of Commercial Aircraft, McAllister will oversee all of Boeing’s manufacturing and internal supply chain resources. He represents the first outsider hired for a senior management position since 2005 when former GE executive Jim McNerney was recruited to be CEO. We believe that his prior background in product engineering, services and manufacturing will surely help in the continuing challenge to ramp-up Boeing’s existing aircraft production cadence to meet backlogged product demand. Boeing previously
According to a report published by the Seattle Times, during his tenure, former Commercial Aircraft CEO Ray Connor had precipitated a sharply negative turn in Boeing’s relationships with its various labor unions. Much of this animosity came during plans to source manufacturing and supply chain related strategies for Boeing’s next generation 777X aircraft. In a January 2014 blog commentary, we had highlighted the effects of Boeing’s strong-willed collaboration efforts with the State of Washington, with prospective suppliers, and with Boeing’s labor unions. Other sour relations remain in the shared manufacturing responsibilities for the 787 Dreamliner aircraft among Seattle based, unionized manufacturing workers and predominate non-unionized workforce at its Charleston South Carolina production facility. Mr. McAllister must now direct some of his leadership efforts at addressing these sore areas.
The announcement of this new external executive hire comes after a corporate supply chain management announcement in March. Pat Shanahan, the former head of Commercial Airplane Programs was appointed as Senior Vice President for Supply Chain Management and Operations companywide. According to that announcement, Shanahan was provided direct responsibility for oversight of manufacturing operations and supplier management functions, including implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies and global supply chain strategies. At the time of his appointment, Shanahan reported directly to Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg. There will obviously be some shared collaboration and leadership with both McAllister and Shanahan moving forward.
© The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group LLC and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.
While industry supply chain teams continue to work on achieving 2016 year-end strategic, tactical, operational line-of-business business and supply chain focused performance objectives, this is the opportunity for Supply Chain Matters to reflect on our prior 2016 Predictions for Industry and Global Supply Chains that we published just before the start of the year.
Our research arm, The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group has published annual predictions since our founding in 2008. Our approach is to view predictions as an important resource for our clients and readers, thus we do not view them as a light, one-time exercise. Not only do we research and publish our annualized predictions, but every year in November, we look-back and score our predictions for the year.
As has been our custom, our scoring process is based on a four-point scale. Four will be the highest score, an indicator that we totally nailed the prediction. One is the lowest score, an indicator of, what on earth were we thinking? Ratings in the 2-3 range reflect that we probably had the right intent but events turned out different. Admittedly, our self-rating is subjective and readers are welcomed to add their own assessment of our predictions concerning this year.
In our prior Part One posting, we looked backed on our prediction for overall economic climate and business planning and the outlook for sourcing and procurement.
In our Part Two posting, we revisited our prediction for continued turbulence and change surrounding global transportation, along with our prediction related to the widening of supply chain talent and skill gaps.
In our Part Three posting, we revisited and reported on our industry specific supply chain predictions for this year.
2016 Prediction Six: Certain Industry S&OP Processes Would Morph to Broader Forms of Integrated Business Planning and Product Management.
Self-Rating: 2.5 (Max Score 4.0)
The term integrated business planning is often depicted as a specific technology vendor term but in reality it is a desire that all functions of a firm be aligned at a single set of financial, business, supply chain operational and tactical business outcomes.
Multiple surveys of multi-industry Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) processes consistently point to existing frustrations in setting the right key performance indicators, investing more time in collecting data than in analyzing implications of decisions and insuring expected business results. Some point to the need for the S&OP process to be able to more directly influence top-line revenue growth along with closing the product demand and supply gaps of existing plans.
A lot of these challenges remain driven by lack of integration among various financial, line-of-business and supply chain decision-support systems, not to mention integration to new product planning and portfolio management. All exist as islands of information that were not pre-designed to integrate into a singular decision-support process. The unfortunate reality is that the decision process supporting S&OP remains firmly rooted in spreadsheets linked to various disparate internal and structured applications and unstructured information.
For 2016, we anticipated that certain S&OP teams, those experiencing high levels of value-chain complexity and business change, would begin to morph S&OP process and decision-making with broader information and contextual decision-making components and begin to identify and address obstacles for incorporating key information integration from product management and financial systems. We predicted that S&OP teams have new options and paths towards their need for more integrated business planning and that the attractiveness for such movements will increase in 2016 and beyond.
The latter part of our prediction has indeed become far more evident in that there are today, far more defined business process and supporting information technology paths directed at IBP. For the former prediction, our sensing of such efforts lead us to believe that such morphing has generally not occurred.
While certain very large enterprises may have had the dedicated financial, IT and people process support e resources to augment their S&OP processes into broader forms of IBP, the clear majority did not have the bandwidth, senior management support or resources to undertake such efforts. Organizational barriers and cultures remain to be overcome, as is the compelling business case.
Our sensing of systems integrators and consultants specializing in S&OP augmentation indicate that multi-industry teams were far more concentrated in understanding what Cloud computing options meant to their various processes, and what various technology vendors were offering for IBP support. Some of the larger ERP platform providers such as SAP remain in the process of trying to integrate the various dimensions. Integrators and consultants found more engagements related to establishing S&OP or overall business planning groundwork initiatives.
For these reasons, we have scored this prediction in a lower quadrant. However, we still believe that IBP efforts will drive substantial business benefits. The question now reflects a reasonable timeframe.+
2016 Prediction Seven: Internet of Things (IoT) Initiatives Would Continue to Dive into Realities of Line of Business Strategy and Deployment
Self-Rating: 3.5 (Max Score 4.0)
Our 2015 prediction was that cross-industry interest levels surrounding products and services leveraging IoT would continue to attract wide multi-industry interest. Indeed, that high level of interest and initial investment continued.
We predicted that in 2016, the realities in the lack of consistent global-wide standards addressing data security concerns would provide visible challenges for broader industry deployments, and that challenge will remain. On Supply Chain Matters, we highlighted one expert’s observation indicating a territorial battle among operations technology focused teams and those responsible for the security of company networks that centers squarely on information security concerns. We joined others in predicting that information hacking will provide additional headline visibility in 2016, increasing the pressure on technology providers and device producers to focus more on information security remediation techniques. Hacking incidents indeed dominated both business media as well as the U.S. Presidential election news with many high-profile incidents of information cyber-attacks. In October, we posted a Supply Chain Matters commentary noting that more powerful and widespread cyber-attacks were the wake-up call for IoT. In the late October incident that struck DNS provider Dyn, Inc., the hackers created a malware program that was carried out, in part, by calling into service unsuspecting devices connected to the Internet, and said devices included digital video recorders and webcams in people’s homes that were taken over by malware and used to help execute the massive cyberattack. Once more, hundreds of thousands of existing devices were believed to have been infected with the malware. The reality of information security did occur and the IoT community is compelled to address this ongoing challenge.
It is rather important to not get caught-up in the multiple predictions of billions of devices connected to the Internet. Rather it is very important to differentiate B2C consumer focused and consumer market use cases from those of broader B2B needs, often referred to as the Industrial Internet. The consumer device sector may well be quagmire in conflicting standards, protocols and security vulnerabilities.
In 2016, we anticipated that B2B focused manufacturers and services providers will broaden their perspectives on connected devices and services, especially in the notions of the realities for being a software-driven vs. a hardware-driven enterprise. That included leveraging intellectual property and software knowledge into more innovative products and services that result in new revenue streams. Enhancing customer engagements and value-added services is the obvious priority. The value of products will increasingly be defined by the embedded sensors, software and consequent added services that products provide for customers. Innovators such as Flex, Cardinal Health, General Electric, John Deere, Siemens, Tesla and others, where senior management embraced the potential of connected devices we believed would continue to lead in these development and deployment efforts. Indeed, the above has occurred and by our lens, the most visible and active player is turning out to be GE and its Digital Business unit. (See subsequent posting related to GE Digital)
We expected some IoT initiatives to stumble in the year because of conflicts in approach and stakeholder interests. We believed that efforts championed and funded by line-of-business groups directed at customer value would have more success than those championed by internal functional groups and focused solely on the “Things.” It was rather important for supply chain and product development teams to align efforts with LOB needs and sponsorship and avoid data silo approaches, particularly with over emphasis on singular software applications. We believed that successful IoT initiatives would stem from data streaming architecture that can feed many different software applications. We anticipated most IoT initiatives in 2016 to be elementary in scope with plans for more peer-to-peer device interaction to come in later years when standards matured.
The above stated, this was a prediction area that was difficult to gage and score. Feedback from our network of contacts among system integrators indicated that many clients did not initially express needs related to IoT initiatives, but with further probing and investigation, integrators and consultants were able to educate prospects on taking initial pilot steps toward connected device applications or business pilots. While attending PTC’s LiveWorks’s IoT technology conference in June, we reported on a panel of systems integrators indicating most customers are not seeking out a specific IoT initiative per-se. Instead, they were seeking technology to assist in resolving use cases involving ongoing business challenges in manufacturing or supply chain or tapping new business opportunities and revenue streams. One panelist indicated that the current hype surrounding IoT has many teams “scratching their heads” in terms of selecting start points or understanding what business problems IoT will solve. From our lens, that feedback reflected needs for broader market education. Where projects lean toward IoT, the sales and approval cycle tends to be elongated, cited in the range of 6-12 months, with indications that discussions representing different business functions such as IT, manufacturing, service management and other functions are involved.
As for technology vendors, we predicted that AT&T, Cisco Systems, Google, Microsoft, PTC, Symantec to be high profile market participants. We anticipated that the battle of IoT platforms will rage again in 2016, which will become very confusing for businesses and selection teams to follow. This was about vendor market positioning and jockeying for being the adopted standard. Regarding our listing of high profile vendors, we actually observed GE and Microsoft, and to a lesser extent Cisco and PTC, to be the higher profile participants. Major ERP providers Oracle and SAP upped their game in strategic alliances and initiatives directed at capturing streaming information produced by edge devices into various manufacturing or supply chain management support applications.
We alerted our readers and clients to expect a high amount of M&A activity in 2016 associated with the IoT segment, as various providers jockey for market dominance or broad and deep expertise. This was an obvious no-brainer prediction and 2016 featured a litany of billion dollar M&A deals that had deep-pocketed technology vendors making strategic moves for entry into various industry specific segments and applications, not to mention additional efforts of strategic alliances. Some highlights included:
- PTC’s acquisition of software developer Kepware
- SAP’s alliance efforts tapping PTC’s IoT technology stack
- To some degree, IBM’s acquisition of The Weather Company
- Cisco’s acquisition of Jasper Technologies for $1.4 billion
- Announced strategic alliances involving Microsoft with both GE Digital and SAP
- Rockwell Collins acquisition of B/E Aerospace
- Numerous acquisitions by GE Digital that included ServiceMax, Bit Stew Systems, io, among others
- Samsung’s acquisition of Harmon International for $8 billion
- Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP Semiconductor for $39 billion.
Overall, our 2016 IoT prediction missed on implementation momentum but was spot-on related to technology and software vendor M&A and alliance efforts to gain footholds in the market.
We come to the end of Part Four in our scoring series of this year’s predictions. In Part Five, we wrap-up with our final two predictions, those being geopolitical events such as TPP impacting global supply chain strategies, and our final prediction that Amazon and Alibaba would broaden their investments in last-mile fulfillment.
Now that we have revisited 8 of our original predictions related to this year, we welcome reader comments and observations related to any of our predictions and consequent events. As always, you can add your voice in the Comments section appearing at the end of any of our postings.
© Copyright 2016. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group LLC and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved
Supply Chain Matters has featured a number of blog commentaries highlighting the various supply chain management accomplishments and challenges related to the commercial aircraft industry. Current unprecedented, multi-year customer order backlogs for new aircraft are having an effect on the entire aerospace industry supply chain ecosystem. Click on the search term Aerospace Supply Chain on our right-hand Categories panel and you will get quite a sampling of current and future challenges.
Wired Magazine had the opportunity to visit Boeing’s Renton Washington Production Facility, where workers build a new 737 aircraft in just nine days. The factory, currently produces new aircraft at the current rate of 42 aircraft per month, with plans to plans to expand this build rate to 47 per month next year, and up to 57 in 2019.
Boeing claims the 1.1-million-square-foot facility is most efficient airplane factory in the world. Arch rival Airbus, has its own multi-year backlog for new single-aisle commercial aircraft and this manufacturer is also investing in manufacturing automation, technology and broader supply chain wide visibility to meet its more aggressive production and supply chain ramp-up challenges.
Video often provides us powerful images of how the supply chain comes together and makes the difference for meeting customer fulfillment needs. Therefore, we invite our readers to view Wired’s recent feature: How Boeing Builds a 737 Aircraft in Just Nine Days.
A couple of caveats related to the video.
You will notice some video clips are of Boeing’s brand new 737 Max being assembled. That aircraft model is still in early production ramp-up and has not met the current cadence rate of 42 aircraft per month. The Wired editor declares that the Renton facility is the most automated aircraft production facility in the world. We believe that rival Airbus would take exception to that statement.
Overall, the most important takeaway is that when you consider Boeing, Airbus and other commercial aircraft manufacturers combined, the overall industry supply chain has its own unique challenges and opportunities. Respective Sales and Operations Planning s well as supply chain leadership teams a all tiers of the industry supply chain are constantly balancing and responding to demand and supply changes or challenges.
And, after all of these new aircraft enter operational service with respective airlines, the service lifecycle management and service parts supply chain kicks into support mode to insure that service parts and components are also available when and where needed.
The supply chain is indeed the lifeblood of an industry.
We previously alerted our Supply Chain Matters readers to the stunning and somewhat embarrassing news that Samsung initiated on its own, a global recall of its newly announced Galaxy Note 7® smartphones due to reports of battery fires. It is now becoming much more evident that Samsung has created additional customer creditability and market perception challenges by attempting to manage its ongoing faulty battery issues on its own, without timely notification to product safety regulators. Yet, once again, there exists other multi-industry supply chain learning regarding needs to closely coordinate potential product or equipment safety issues with governmental regulatory agencies. Learning that other manufacturers and their respective suppliers have painfully encountered.
As of this week, Samsung has received 92 reports of the batteries overheating in the U.S., including 26 reports of burns and 55 reports of property damage, including fires in cars and a garage. And that is just for the U.S. The consumer electronics provider itself has been reluctant to share details relative to which supplier batteries are suspected (there are multiple battery suppliers) and why the uncontrollable thermal events are occurring. We came across a well written analysis commentary penned by Brian Morin on Seeking Alpha that points to overheating of a battery cell as a result of anode-to-cathode shorting caused by flawed separators as a potential cause. This analysis raises speculation that the problem may not just concern Samsung but other smartphone manufacturers as well, depending on the specific supplier involved. Again, Samsung has yet to identify the specific battery supplier involved in the recall, or whether the battery performance issue extends to other models.
Samsung launched the top-of-the line Galaxy Note 7 on August 17 in an effort to announce the new model prior to Apple’s expected iPhone 7 product launch. Approximately two weeks later, reports surfaced as to occurrences of faulty batteries that were exploding during the recharging process. Now as the hubris of Apple’s iPhone 7 permeates media channels, Samsung must deal with effects and visuals of battery fires among its smartphones.
Today, a published report by The Wall Street Journal, coupled with other business media reports all seem to conclude that Samsung has fumbled this recall because of attempts to singularly investigate and respond to the occurrences of faulty lithium-ion batteries that were causing unexpected explosions and fires. Global wide telecommunications carriers as the principle distributors of the Note 7 were caught in the middle of this situation, receiving conflicting information from the manufacturer and from consumers, while unable to act without a formal product recall notice. It still remains unclear as to whether the problem can be corrected by a different battery, and when supplies of that different battery are made available. Meanwhile, individual consumers and business customers are reluctant to suspend using their new smartphones without having a replacement in-hand.
This week. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was obligated to take direct control of the ongoing issues with the occurrence of some overheating batteries by issuing a formal and immediate product recall notice. The notice urges consumers to “immediately stop using and power down the recalled Galaxy Note 7 devices purchased before September 15, 2016.” They are further instructed “to contact the wireless carrier, retail outlet or Samsung.com where they purchased the device to receive free of charge a new smartphone with a different battery, a refund, or a new replacement device.” The latter statement is of course what will obviously lead to other confusion but the timing and the urgency left little choice.
According to U.S. law, the CPSC must be notified within 24 hours after a product safety risk has been identified. The agency did not issue a statement until a week after Samsung’s initial announcement. The chairman of the CPSC indicated to the WSJ that for a company to go out on its own is not a recipe for a successful product recall, and in other media interviews, was somewhat blunter in his remarks.
This 24-hour notification was initiated as a result of the aftereffects of the prior sudden unattended vehicle acceleration and other perceived vehicle safety issues that impacted Toyota during the period from 2009-2010. Three years later, Toyota was still dealing with the after effects and U.S. legislators collectively called for stricter controls related to product safety. Today the automotive industry as a whole continues to deal with the challenges of faulty air bag inflators and other product safety related recalls that have now exceeded all previous records for total number of recalled automobiles. The 24-hour threshold coupled with the potential for significant financial and litigation implications related to the mere potential of product safety concerns has led automotive producers to err on the side of caution and engage regulators much earlier in the process and issue a product recall. Currently it seems that not a week can go by without news of some major recall involving an automotive brand.
Samsung’s faulty battery issues further have some parallels to the 2013 challenges that impacted Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner aircraft as a result of unexplained lithium ion battery fires affecting the aircraft’s own power systems. A series of unexplained battery compartment fire incidents triggered a subsequent six-month grounding of all existing operational 787 aircraft while government safety agencies and Boeing searched for the cause. The aircraft was later approved for service after Boeing reluctantly initiated a complete redesign of the battery housing unit containing lithium-ion batteries. The incident was very costly or Boeing from both a financial as well as brand reputation basis. Airline flyers began to question the overall safety of the 787.
Boeing’s initial reaction was to push-back on government regulators. An NTSB investigative report later concluded that the probable cause was an internal short circuit within a battery cell which led to a condition of thermal runway. The report also pointed to cell manufacturing defects and oversight of cell manufacturing processes involving the battery manufacturer. Today, there are little incidents of battery issues for operational 787’s but there will also be some concerns on the part of airline travelers as more and more lithium ion battery related fires come to the forefront. U.S. and other airline safety regulators are considering outright bans on allowing bulk quantities of the batteries to fly in aircraft cargo compartments.
Hence the learning is again that product defects often involve the supply chain, not just your organization, but others as well. In this specific Galaxy Note 7 issue, Samsung SDI is a supplier, along with other battery suppliers. The open question is whether Samsung was somehow trying to control the broader industry fallout of its battery manufacturing process. We will not likely know the answer to that until later in the investigative process.
Like others, Samsung will eventually garner important learning regarding the control or management of consumer focused product performance data and in trying to control the fallout. On the one-hand, today’s social media based channels, whether good, or not so good, provide instantaneous feedback and perceptions related to consumer experiences and product performance. A belief that the fallout can be controlled or buffered by internal control processes has passed. Like any other challenge involving major supply chain disruption or business continuity, there must always exist a set of response plans that include important decision criteria as to what needs to occur at any point. Lawyers, corporate risk and other senior managers will often have their own viewpoints but they must understand that this new world of always-on media and instantaneous information requires the most-timely responses, often with a supply chain purview.
The lesson for all is to look to multi-industry learning from past events and not let internal or external perceptual concerns cloud regulatory requirements, regardless of how your organization views such requirements. In the minds of consumers and customers, product and supply chain component safety trumps all other concerns.
© Copyright 2016. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.