spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

March 16, 2010

 

Learnings From Caterpillar -- Procurement Strategy, Supply Risk Mitigation and Rising Order Volumes

Timothy Aeppel, who often covers the procurement and supply chain area for The Wall Street Journal, published an extremely informative piece this morning that details how Caterpillar, perhaps the ideal industrial bellwether company to consider as a thermometer to gauge the temperature of the economy, is preparing itself and its suppliers for the “bullwhip” effect of an economic recovery. The article is a must read piece for anyone in procurement or operations. It includes insights into specific supply risk management strategies and programs that CAT is deploying. The article suggests that Caterpillar is extremely involved in monitoring the operations of suppliers to insure that they can meet increased demand in 2010 even in a slow recovery situation. The entire situation reminds me of a real world simulation of the supply chain beer game which I previously wrote “teaches the challenges of managing and communicating supply and demand signals across multiple tiers of a supply chain -- and its impact on availability and inventory as a result. Besides its educational value, the beer game can be fun, especially on a Friday afternoon, when you can drink the game pieces once the demonstration is over.” But in this case, there will be no toasting or office high-fives if Caterpillar does not get things right.



Consider how "Caterpillar recently told its steel suppliers that it will more than double its purchases of the metal this year -- even if the company's own sales don't rise one iota." This forecast, even under a less than rosy economic scenario, is due to the bullwhip effect where "even small increases in demand can cause a big snap in the need for parts and materials further down the supply chain" due in large part to the rapid leaning out of CAT's inventory and supply chain in 2008 and 2009. Moreover, "even if demand for its equipment is flat this year -- an unlikely projection it [CAT] calls its 'Great Recession scenario' -- it would still need to boost production in its factories by 10% to 15%, just to restock dealer inventories and meet ongoing customer demand." And even at this level, the WSJ suggests, CAT's suppliers would have to increase production 30% to 40% just to keep Peoria's production lines running. More optimistic scenarios (e.g., a 15% spike in demand) would force many of CAT's suppliers to "more than double their shipments," according to one source the article quotes.

To insure that they suffer less impact as a result a of the bullwhip effect compared with other industrial manufacturers, many of which might have supply chain overlap with common supply bases, CAT even "took the unusual step late last year of visiting with key suppliers to ensure they had the resources to quickly boost output," Aeppel reports. For those in the supplier management world, we know these types of visits should not be infrequent under ideal supplier development scenarios. But in this case, they are remarkable considering that as part of their efforts, CAT appears to have taken strides to make sure suppliers can meet forthcoming demand from both production and capital perspectives. To this end, Caterpillar is acting as a supply chain finance intermediary for its suppliers, offering a new "program that allows suppliers to borrow money from a bank, against their receivables, at a favorable interest rate. This means they can tap the loan funds within five days of delivery of goods to Caterpillar—as opposed to a typical 60-day wait."

The rest of the article provides numerous examples that I'm sure will provide a ray of hope to those who thought manufacturing in North America was in a state of permanent decline. Just as fast as orders dried up 12 months ago, we could see a massive rebound, testing the limits of production and available skilled labor at many smaller suppliers who were on the brink of insolvency at the end of 2009. To pave a smoother transition for its suppliers who are in the process of ramping-up capacity, CAT has even agreed not to change order volumes for a period of three months under a new "freeze period" plan which will "give suppliers greater ability to plan ahead and persuade banks to increase their financing, since there's no chance of the business suddenly falling away again during that three-month span."

Hopefully, CAT's example will serve as a wake-up call for companies that under-invested in supplier development, supplier management and supply risk management going into the downturn. Moreover, it also highlights the even larger forms of supply risk that procurement organizations face under an even moderate restocking scenario toward the end of a recession compared with the insolvency risk of suppliers during a downturn. Kudos to the WSJ for surfacing the details of CAT's current direct materials procurement, supplier management, supplier development and supply risk programs and calling attention to a subject that we should all think about more often. If you're not thinking and acting like CAT today, you should be, even if you don't believe a lasting recovery is around the economic corner.

- Jason Busch

Comments
Jason, Great post and a great article in the WSJ. As we sit down to write our metal forecasts for 2010 (particularly our steel forecast) we have to weigh the small increases in apparent demand, and that is what this is which can create great spikes in price and also part shortages against real demand meaning underlying economic growth. It is tempting to think that what is happening in say for the example the Cat supply chain is a broad based economic recovery. It is indeed the bullwhip effect that is actually occurring, not a big growth in what economists call real demand. In fact, we think demand will remain rather muted or stop and start'ish throughout 2010. So we'll likely see a run-up in prices now as everyone restocks and replenishes and a drop in prices later, when when the apparent demand is not supported by real demand. That said, the reason Cat is such an amazing company is because it fundamentally understands these scenarios and more important - has a plan to address each scenario. I've had the pleasure of working for both Steve Wunning and Dan Murphy in a prior life and I have no doubt that they have fully implemented their supplier risk plans. The real questions for me are this: a) how long will the bullwhip effect/re-stocking go on for? b) how long will we see these price spikes and bottlenecks? c) how will we get our 80/20 suppliers ready for the burst? d) and how will we ramp down painlessly after the burst?
# Posted By Lisa Reisman | 1/27/10 7:17 AM
As a person who grew up in Peoria during the major recession in the early 1980's, I recall well the devastation wrought on the Midwestern community by the "eminent demise" of Caterpillar back then. At one point, one if five houses was for sale. It is good to see that Cat not only survived but has continued to learn the importance of working with suppliers to make sure everyone in the supply chain makes some profit. Too bad Detroit did not embrace the lessons Peoria did.

Kevin Potts
VP of Product Management
blog - http://emptorisinc.blogspot.com
# Posted By Kevin Potts | 1/27/10 8:13 AM
This example is replete with best practices: supplier monitoring, demand visibility/sharing/shaping, TCO/risk reduction via supply chain financing, etc. - but most of all it's about the scenario planning in their business that's not just in supply, but in all aspects of their business. The foresight to establish "trough plans" let them take the necessary, but difficult decisions, with all stakeholders, especially their employees. Sid Banwart, their head of HR, had one of the top rated presentations at our best practices conference last year because of their thoughtful approach. It's been a tough 18 months for them, and I hope it gets better for them on many levels.

Lisa does a bring up a good point about real demand vs. bullwhip demand, but they're not independent variables. My alma mater taught me that 1) it's generally a random walk down wall street, but also 2) the power of behavioral psychology in business. 'Systems' are dynamic and self-reinforcing, so the fake demand may in fact create some psychological boosting to spur 'real' consumer demand. Similarly, consumer behaviors can have a ripple effect on upstream business. For example (and Lisa can chime in here), the rise in arguably speculative consumer investments in new ETFs for precious metals is driving up prices to those poor unhedged folks with real demand. Again, this is where scenario planning, and a subscription to MetalMiner? :-), can translate demand variability back up the supply chain to supply variability in both price and availability. This requires leadership and TRULY strategic sourcing processes.
# Posted By Pierre Mitchell | 1/27/10 2:29 PM
Great points Pierre. Definitely the speculative demand has had the real effect of raising industrial buyers' metal prices, particularly for copper, aluminum, zinc and the precious metals. The other noteworthy point on "apparent vs. real demand" is that China's growth last year fed on apparent demand (or restocking of nearly every metal under the sun). Now as China tries to transform itself to a consumer driven economy (and not an export driven one) it will need to have "real" demand support its growth (because there is only so much steel one can have sitting out back so to speak). At the end of the day, real demand is the only long term driver of growth but the short term "apparent demand peaks" are going to sock everyone in the pocketbook. Steel buyers -- what are you seeing out there? Price increases, I know!
# Posted By Lisa Reisman | 1/27/10 2:49 PM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved