[推荐]The Beginning of Supply Chain Management: An Interview with Tony Friscia

This interview with the founder of AMR Research touches on the evolution of the concept of supply chain management, and what the future of the field holds.

-- Supply Chain Management Review, 1/1/2008

Tony Friscia: The basics

·         In 1986, Friscia founded AMR Research firm in the manufacturing space. By the early 1990s, AMR Research had expanded its focus to include the supply chain, an emerging competency area.

·         In 1996, Friscia was involved in the creation of the Supply Chain Council, designed to add credibility to the supply chain business discipline.

·         Friscia is a member of the Clinton Global Initiative and serves on the board of trustees of The Manufacturing Institute, the research arm of the National Association of Manufacturers.

·         Currently, Friscia works with AMR Research to push the art and science of supply chain in innovative ways, such as developing the concept of the demand driven supply network (DDSN), providing peer networking forums, and creating the annual “Top 25” supply chain rankings. In addition, AMR Research has been launching new initiatives into sustainability and the “green” supply chain.

Editorial Director Francis J. Quinn recently interviewed Friscia at the SCMR offices in Waltham, Mass.

Q: When did you start hearing about supply chain management and why did you become interested in it?

A: When we started our company in 1986, our initial focus was on the plant floor and on manufacturing systems. Then in the early ’90s, we saw that companies were broadening their view beyond manufacturing facilities to include the whole enterprise. This really marked the transition from MRP (manufacturing resource planning) to ERP, or enterprise resource planning. So we got very involved in helping to define the ERP requirements, working with companies to select the software and to get the benefit from those early implementations. But it soon beCAMe clear that focusing on their internal facilities alone would not yield those desired benefits. The only way companies were going to get a return from those ERP investments was to start looking outside of the enterprise to the supply chain. That’s basically how we got interested in the supply chain—the business requirements were pushing all of us beyond the enterprise to the supply chain.

90年代，开始寻找定义ERP需求的过程中，发现集中于内部投资并没有产生期望的收益，唯一出路开始关注于企业外部，供应链领域。

Q: Tell us about the SCOR model?

A: The SCOR model was created 12 years ago based on the core components of Plan, Source, Make, and Deliver, with Return added more recently. The model has stood the test of time because from the very beginning we took a practical approach. We realized that we had to look at supply chain as a discipline. It really had nothing to do with whether or not we had advanced technology, or whether or not we had suppliers that were global or just around the corner. It was all about the basic concepts of supply chain, which really are timeless concepts.

SCOR模型能够经受事件的考验，主要在于一开始就采取实证的方式进行模型的设计，并作为不断演进的原则。

Q: In addition to the founding of the Supply Chain Council, what have been some of the other major developments in the evolution of supply chain management?

A: I’ll point to three things. From a business performance standpoint, the first is the dominance of Wal-Mart and Dell in their markets throughout the 1990s. In Wal-Mart’s case, they redefined a traditional, age-old industry. Until Wal-Mart came on the scene, everyone said that retail is about fashion and merchandising. Wal-Mart instead said that retail is about supply chain management, it’s about having products on the shelf that people want when they want them. They said it really doesn’t matter whether you have fashion in your store, you just have to have what people want at the best prices and they’ll come. It’s not coincidental that Lee Scott, the company’s CEO, has a supply chain background.

在SCC成立过程中，很多重大的供应链演进方面的事情发生了：1）Wal-Mart and Dell在整个90年代快速的在各自领域占据主宰。一个是传统过时的行业，Wal-Mart重新定义了零售的定义，零售是供应链管理，而不是时尚和商品销售，零售是将客户需要的产品，以及需要的时候，放到货架上。你可以在商店里没有任何时尚元素，但你只必须有客户所需，并提供最佳价格给客户即可。

Q: What about Dell?

A: Michael Dell was really a supply chain guy from the beginning. He wasn’t looking at having the hottest looking computer. But he was going to make that computer to order. It was about how they managed their sources of supply and how they built to order.

DELL也是一个供应链管理者。他没有关注计算机的产品外观，而是考虑需要将计算机按客户的需要生产。

I think those two companies had a lot to do with making supply chain more than a grunt job in the company. The supply chain was the basis of how they competed and won.

Q: What’s the second major landmark event?

A: It was the whole e-commerce revolution and the emergence of the Internet. Yes, the Internet changes everything. But for me the real significance is that the Internet has been an accelerator for the supply chain. So when you look beyond the bubble bursting and all the software companies that went out of business, think about the supply chain impacts. Because of the Internet all business has become global. Small suppliers who in the past could not connect electronically to big customers now can do that inexpensively and without a lot of complexity. They don’t need expensive internal departments to manage their technology. Small suppliers in China, Vietnam, or Bulgaria now can be part of your supply chain in Dallas because they’re interconnected electronically and they communicate in real time. The Internet has been the foundation technology in the global super-highway that now exists.

第二个重大事件就是电子商务的变革和互联网的出现。互联网成为供应链的加速器。因为互联网，所有的商业便成了全球化。小供应商，能够快速，简单的和大客户取得上午联络，而不需昂贵的内部IT投资。全球任何劳力便宜的地方，中国、越南都可以成为总部在达拉斯供应链的一部分。

Q: And the third major development in the supply chain’s evolution?

A: It’s been the emergence of what AMR Research calls the Demand Driven Supply Network, or DDSN. Procter & Gamble, a great supply chain player, introduced the concept of the consumer-driven supply network. Our model is based on that to some extent. The idea is that you’re going to compete and win by managing supply as close to demand as possible. If you build your business around meeting ever-changing demand, you’re going to win. Leaders like P&G and Wal-Mart and Dell do that.

第三个主要发展变革就是需求驱动的供应链。宝洁发明了客户驱动的供应网络。如果你的业务围绕着持续变化的需求展开，你就会成功。

Q: How are companies, particularly in North America, doing overall to develop that demand-driven competency?

A: It depends on the industry. We already talked about Wal-Mart, but other retailers like Best Buy also have done a very good job. Lowe’s is another good supply chain company. So I think you look across retail, where demand is everything, a lot of those companies have figured it out.

北美公司中除了沃尔马，还所有就是百思买。他们在零售过程中，需求就是一切。

Likewise, in the high-tech sector. You’re either demand driven or you’re in trouble—look at companies like Apple or Texas Instruments The same holds true with consumer packaged goods. With these companies in particular, it’s part about the brand and part about innovation and operational excellence. A company like P&G does everything well—they innovate, they have great brands, they have great operations. But it’s a mixed bag; you see other CPG companies that only do one or two of these well, and some that don’t do anything particularly well. But, overall CPG is a place where you’re going to see leaders.

高科技领域，你要么是需求导向的模式，要么就是一团糟。你看看苹果和德州电器就知道了。同样是消费品行业，一部分公司在品牌方面做的非常好，一部分公司在创新和运营上优秀。但是宝洁在每个领域上都非常成熟。从宝洁那里，你可以看到什么是领导者。

In some industries, you don’t see very much leadership in this area. Automotive in the U.S. is a good example, I’m sorry to say. The big OEMs don’t have very good communication of demand signal from a customer all the way back to the second tier supplier. Johnson Controls, one of our Top 25, is an exception in this industry, and globally, Toyota is a notable exception. Looking at AMR Research’s Supply Chain Top 25, the ranked companies largely come from those three industries: retail, consumer package goods, and high-tech. I think there’s a reason for that.

另一些行业，在看不到这些。美洲汽车公司就是个例子。OEM总厂，根本无法将客户的需求传达给第二阶的供应商。Johnson控制器，是一个特例。丰田更是一特例。在AMR 的全球供应链最高25名录企业中，大多来自于3各行业，零售、CPG快速消费品以及高科技。

Q: One of the key criterion in selecting the Top 25 supply chains is their demand-driven capability. What are some of the other traits of the top performers?

A: In terms of operational performance, you see a high return on assets among the companies that make the list. Very strong inventory turns as well. A good track record of innovation is an important characteristic, too. For example, Apple came very high on the list in large part because their innovation cycles are very fast and they quickly bring on new products and enter new markets. Also, the ability to manage growth is a core characteristic of the top-performing companies.

除了客户驱动的能力之外，投资回报率也是一个非常号的运作绩效。而快速的库存周转以及创新能力都是对顶级供应链运作企业的基本指标。苹果在创新能力上是超凡脱俗的。当然，管理企业的持续增长率也是关键指标之一。

Q: Let’s talk a little more about innovation. Is it strictly DNA—you either have it or you don’t—or can innovation be built into an existing culture?

A: I think you can bring it into the culture. P&G is a great example. Under the current CEO (A.G. Lafley), they have tried to build innovation into the culture. They have created practices for collaborating internally that are designed to foster new ideas. They’ve gotten people to feel good about bringing ideas forward—even if they’re bad ideas—because there’s a reward system as well as a way of capturing and discussing those ideas. They’ve also brought customers into that loop by having employees meet with them to talk about their new ideas. P&G’s Swiffer product was the result of a collaboration between employees and customers.

创新能力是一种文化范畴。宝洁在此方面是个非常好的例子。他们完全将创新纳入了企业文化。

Another company that fosters innovation is IBM. They are trying to bring all employees into that loop, and the technology exists today allowing them to do that. Employees from all over the world can weigh in on new ideas as they bubble up to the surface. So, yes, I do think you can change a culture to be more innovative. But it’s got to come from the top.

IBM是另一个将创新纳入企业循环的例子。

Q: Is technology the key driver in enabling supply chain initiatives? Or do companies more often come up the innovative idea or processes first and then look for the supporting?

A: Technology is critical to doing all the things we’ve talked about. But that said, the technology plays a supporting role. To illustrate, one of the first studies we did as a company looked at factory automation in Japan versus the U.S in the late 1980s. In particular, we wanted to find out why the Japanese were outperforming U.S. companies in important areas like quality. What we learned is that they actually used less technology than their counterparts in U.S. industries, but they used it better. Why is that? When we dug into it, we found that culturally, before they ever used technology, the Japanese companies got their processes really down pat. So when they brought in the technology, they made those processes even better. Wal-Mart has done the same. First they innovate a process, then they bring in technology.

技术是做好以上提到的创新、运作绩效的非常关键的因素。但是技术更多是支撑的角色。

AMR在1980年代做过一个比对研究。希望发现日美两国的工厂自动化比对。希望法西安为什么日本企业产出在质量方面比美国更高。但是我们发现，日本企业在信息技术上使用的比美国对手更少，但是用的更好。我们发现日企在运用技术时候，他们首先将流程明确化，然后在信息技术上进行落实。效果更好。Wal-Mart在此方面的做法相同。

At the same time, it’s important to remember that technology is what helps you build your supply chain network. It’s opened the door for us to do a lot of innovative things that we never could have done without it.

Q: Thinking about the profession, are supply chain professionals making an impact on their organizations at a faster or slower rate than you expected?

A: Faster. As I mentioned earlier, today you have supply chain execs running companies. Now, that’s not widespread but you wouldn’t have even seen that 10 or 20 years ago. In the past, it would have been marketing guys or sales guys or even engineers, but not supply chain executives.

供应链的专业化对于企业组织的影响冲击，要比以往任何一个时候都要快。20年前，绝对见不到供应链执行官。而一般都是营销、销售甚至工程专家任职执行官。

Even more importantly, in the best companies an integrated supply chain executive now sits on the executive team and reports to the CEO. You’re starting to see that across industries, but especially in the retail, CPG, and high-tech sectors we talked about earlier. That wasn’t the case before. You now even read about supply chains in the annual reports. For example, I was reading recently in Samsung’s (another of our Top 25 performers) annual report, the CEO was talking about the importance of supply chain management in their overall performance.

现在优秀的公司，都是将供应链执行官纳入到董事执行委员会，直接向CEO汇报。

Q: Do you envision more people with supply chain background as moving into CEO type positions going forward?

A: At certain kinds of companies, yes. It depends on the culture of the company. I think the CEO of P&G is probably always going to be a brand marketing person. I think the CEO of IBM is always going to come from sales. But I do think at more and more companies like Wal-Mart, like Dell, where operations are their core competence, you’ll see supply chain execs running the company.

Q: What kind of skill sets do supply chain managers need to advance in their profession and maybe even move into an executive management position?

A: When we put the SCOR model together, we knew that we had to come up with a common understanding of the supply chain. Some companies were defining the supply chain as supplier management. Some said it was procurement. Others defined it in logistics terms. We agreed that a broader definition was needed: The supply chain encompasses everything from supplier’s supplier to customer’s customer. So when you think about it that way, it’s the entirety of the operation.

To answer your question, then, the skills needed to advance must be viewed in the context of this broad definition. So if it’s a manufacturing company, the supply chain manager needs to know how the manufacturing function works, how sourcing and procurement operate, how suppliers think, and how you manage supplier relationships. They have to know logistics, today especially with a global perspective. They have to understand the customers’ changing needs and be able to respond appropriately. They need to be able to link innovation to customer demand and link production to customer demand. They have to be right there at the shelf. And since they need to get cooperation from a lot of departments they don’t control, they need to be a pretty good politicians. In short, it’s a very tough set of skills.

供应链职业人需要提升自我职业前途的技能，必须从一个更为宽泛的供应链定义的角度出发进行考虑。也就是供应链包含了从 from supplier’s supplier to customer’s customer。如果是工业企业，那么供应链职业人需要了解制造生产、采购、货源管理、供应商关系。同事需要了解全球视野的物流。必须了解客户变化的需求，并能够准确响应。能够将创新和客户的需求紧密关联起来，并基于客户需求进行生产作业。此外还需要具有能够将在合适的时间、放到合适的消费地。另外因为需要其他非行政直管部门的协作，他们要具有很强的企业政治能力。总是综合的素质要求很高。

Q: Let’s zero in on the global component. Will global operating experience be a prerequisite to advance in the supply chain profession going forward?

A: Yes, I think the people who are successful in this role, at the bigger companies at least, will be those with some international leadership experience. This likely means living somewhere else and running an operation as a way of really understanding how you manage in different cultures. If you don’t have that understanding, you’re at a disadvantage in today’s environment.

全球经验的供应链能力将会更加成功。至少在大型公司如此。这类似于不同文化背景下的运作方式和模式的理解。如果没有这种文化认知，今天的环境下，将是一个明显的缺陷。

Q: What are some of the other big supply chain challenges coming over the next 5-10 years?

A: One of the big challenges going forward is talent development. To address this, we need to start by looking at the education process. How do you get educated to become a supply chain professional today? If you look at the university programs, there’s still a strong departmental focus. There’s a logistics degree, a transportation degree, an operations research degree. We’re now starting to see supply chain degrees, but I’m not sure how integrated they really are in some cases. So as supply chain groups grow in big companies, will there be a sufficient kind of talent to meet the demand? There’s a great opportunity for training and talent development both at the universities and the companies themselves.

未来5～10年，最大的挑战就是人才的培养。

Risk management is going to become increasingly important in the years ahead as well. The supply chain is critical here. The companies who had integrated supply chain strategies are the ones who got through disruptions like Katrina in better shape than those who didn’t. Wal-Mart was in good shape, P&G was in good shape post-Katrina. Why? Because the supply chain exec was right there in the CEO’s office and could make fast decisions. Companies without that capability could not respond as well.

此外风险管理也是未来越来越重要的主题。

The speed of business is another huge challenge. Before a product even gets to market these days, the specs are online, everybody in the world can see them, and money flows to that idea like there’s no tomorrow. So by the time I get to market, I have three other companies—one of them is in China, one of them in India, and one of them in Mississippi—all coming to market with the same product. So if I’m not fast, if I can’t get to the distributors and to the shelf faster, if I can’t keep the product on the shelf and innovate at the same time, then I have no sustainable advantage. Companies understand that now more than ever. All of this underscores the importance of the supply chain and the people working in this field.

业务的相应速度也是未来巨大挑战。产品还没有上市，特性一上网，全球都可获知其信息，此产品特性的复制的现金流不消一日即可到达。当产品推向市场的时候，可能就已经面临了3个其他公司同样产品的竞争。如果此产品不能更快，那么甚至不能获得分销商，并更快的上架。而同期，不能对上架产品进行创新，在不能获得持续的竞争力。

Q: Thinking back over the years you’ve been involved in the supply chain, can you identify any single factor that marks the difference between the leaders and the rest of the pack?

A: This may sound like a cliché, but I really believe it is culture. Every successful company feeds off the culture that the executives breed within the organization. Toyota is a great example. They’re a phenomenal company that represents best practice in so many things they do. Toyota will share their best practices with any company, including their biggest competitors. They’ll teach them lean, tell them about kanban, go through the whole process. So the question becomes, why doesn’t GM or Ford just copy them? And the answer is culture. The GM culture or the Ford culture is not the Toyota culture. So without the culture, what Toyota does is not going to work in these companies.

很多成功企业实际是将这种供应链的执行力根植在企业文化中。丰田就是一个很好的例子。丰田和很多公司分享他们的最佳实践。但是问题是，通用或者福特不能复制。问题就在文化层面。

Here’s another example. I remember when Kmart said they were going to buy all the technology that Wal-Mart had, the rationale being that this would help them become like Wal-Mart. But that didn’t happen because Kmart did not have the Wal-Mart culture. You can only do what your culture allows you to do, not somebody else’s. The top supply chain performers understand their culture first, they build their operations second, they demonstrate excellence third.

Kmart也是一个例子。他们希望购买沃尔马所有的技术，希望能够帮助他们成为沃尔马。但是这并没有发生。你只能做你的文化允许你能做的事情。顶级供应链绩效者，了解他们的文化，其次才建立运营，再次才是追求卓越。

Q: Can a company change its culture?

A: Culture is embodied in the people who run the company. You can’t ever work around that. So how is a big company, for example, going to change its culture? It’s not going to change if the same people keep running the company. And you can’t just change one person either. As long as the broad management team remains in place in an organization, the culture—and the way it operates—is going to stay the same.