http://forums.industryweek.com en Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:44:15 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.industryweek.com/IWImages/misc/rss.jpg http://forums.industryweek.com http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IWChainReactions/~3/RONvae-bXAM/showthread.php Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:02:38 GMT As if being laid off wasn't enough of a burden, it turns out that many employers prefer to only interview people who already have jobs, the thinking going that if you've managed to hang onto your position this long into the recession,you must be a top performer. According to an executive recruiter interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, many companies say they "prefer to fill positions with 'passive candidates' who are working and not actively seeking a job." How's that for a Catch-22?

I guess that's good news for those of us who still have jobs -- our companies think of us as having "significant value," at least if the WSJ is to be believed.

Meanwhile, for those who are out of work right now, USA Today has put together an interactive map that highlights exactly when jobs in a number of sectors, including manufacturing, are likely to rebound in every major city. Unless you're living in Rust Belt city dependent on automotive (sorry, Flint, Mich.), the prognosticators believe that manufacturing jobs will start coming back within a year, i.e., third quarter 2010. Exactly how the unemployed will be voting in the mid-year elections of 2010 will, of course, be a cause for concern for both political parties. ]]> Chain Reactions David Blanchard http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=6011 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=6011 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IWChainReactions/~3/5WuiiV0-jP0/showthread.php Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:27:13 GMT Let's start with a provocative quote, and then I'll put it into context for you (that's the way these Internet search engine optimization algorithms prefer we bloggers write our material now):

"While the reliance on manufacturing made sense in the 20th century, the sooner we recognize that manufacturing is no longer the key to a prosperous middle class, the better off Michigan will be in the 21st."

Okay, that's according to Lou Glazer, who runs a think tank called Michigan Future, quoted in the Wall Street Journal. Glazer's point, once you get past the audacity of claiming that manufacturing's day in the sun has set (at least, in Detroit), is that all the good jobs these days that will actually contribute to a thriving middle class are in the knowledge industries (finance, insurance, health care, etc.).

I'm not so sure I go along entirely with that premise -- aren't the banks, the insurance companies and the health care providers (along with their co-conspirators in government) the very people who got us in this economic mess in the first place? On the other hand, Glazer does point out that Michigan has slipped from 16th to 33rd in the nation in terms of per capita income in a mere nine years, so something is rotten in the state of the Not-So-Big Three. And if "clean cars" really does represent the future of the U.S. auto industry (the jury will be out deliberating that one for many years to come), the middle class jobs will come on the product development and engineering side, not the traditional assembly side.

The author of the WSJ column, William McGurn, summarizes Michigan's plight thusly: "What the middle class needs more than anything else is an economy where employers have to compete for their labor." ]]> Chain Reactions David Blanchard http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=5611 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=5611 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IWChainReactions/~3/qv2oIU-PpY4/showthread.php Fri, 29 May 2009 14:05:35 GMT When it comes to determining best-in-class supply chains, inventory turns is the name of the game. That, at least, is the conclusion one reaches when studying the results of AMR Research’s annual ranking (http://www.amrresearch.com/Content/View.aspx?compURI=tcm:7-43469)of the top supply chains in... When it comes to determining best-in-class supply chains, inventory turns is the name of the game. That, at least, is the conclusion one reaches when studying the results of AMR Research’s annual ranking of the top supply chains in the world (although “the world” mostly means brand-names well known in the United States. You’ll search in vain, for instance, if you’re expecting to see any companies from the BRIC nations.)

The AMR rankings take a lot of things into consideration, most notably public opinion: 20% of the total scores given to each company is based on “peer opinion,” which means folks who work in a supply chain capacity at a manufacturer or a retailer, as well as some supply chain experts in other fields (including at least one journalist who wrote a book on supply chain management best practices). Another 20% of the total comes from AMR analysts. So 40% of the rankings has a bit of the “American Idol” popularity contest feel to it, with the AMR analysts playing the role of the judges (we won’t speculate as to which analyst most reminds us of cool and cynical Simon Cowell, and which reminds us of the kooky but gushing Paula Abdul), and the peers playing the part of the audience voting from home.

And as you might expect, the peers and the analysts didn’t exactly see things the same way. The two highest vote-getters from the public were Apple and Wal-Mart, with Procter & Gamble a not-so-close third. For the AMR analysts, the top three supply chains were, in order, P&G, Samsung Electronics and Apple. And yet, somehow, Dell managed to nudge aside almost the entire pack to finish second only to Apple in the final round. And the reason Dell continues to be the poster child for supply chain management is its proficiency with inventory turns, a category worth 25% of the total vote. With an inventory score of 46.2 (2008 cost of goods sold / 2008 quarterly average inventory), Dell once again finished at the top, although Apple was close at its heels with a score of 45.5 (the next-closest pursuer in the inventory-turns race was Walt Disney, at 33.0).

Of course, as we noted in last year’s post-game summary, the whole nature of “inventory turns” means different things to different companies. While Dell’s direct-to-consumer supply chain model is solidly centered on the production of computers, Apple’s and Walt Disney’s are far more nebulous. Do the sales of digital iTunes count in Apple’s inventory turns? Does everybody who saw Disney’s “Wall*E” in a theater count as an inventory turn? Whereas Dell sells its products one at a time, Apple and Disney can sell the same product (music, movies, etc.) to millions of different people. So we’re definitely getting into “apples vs. oranges” territory when comparing inventory turns.

In any event, the other main factors in AMR’s rankings include 3-year weighted return on assets (worth 25% of the total score), and 3-year weighted revenue growth (worth 10%). Texas Instruments ended up with the best ROA score (20.5%), while Apple blew away the rest of the field on revenue growth with 32.7% (Schlumberger was the only other company over 20%).

Anheuser-Busch, which placed at # 10 in 2008, fell completely off the list in 2008, no doubt due largely to its acquisition by Belgian firm InBev.

Here's the full list of the Top 25 Supply Chains of 2009 (in reverse order):

25. Intel
24. Sony Ericsson
23. Publix Super Markets
22. Unilever
21. Best Buy
20. Colgate-Palmolive
19. Lockheed Martin
18. Texas Instruments
17. Hewlett-Packard
16. Walt Disney
15. Tesco
14. Nike
13. Coca-Cola
12. Johnson & Johnson
11. Schlumberger
10. Toyota Motor
9. PepsiCo
8. Samsung Electronics
7. Wal-Mart Stores
6. Nokia
5. Cisco Systems
4. IBM
3. Procter & Gamble
2. Dell
1. Apple ]]> Chain Reactions David Blanchard http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=5241 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=5241