A Portrait of the Supply Chain Manager

It’s been written that a career in supply chain management can be like climbing a mountain.

While there is often a map for the path forward in professions like accounting, medicine and the law, in supply chain management – as with mountaineering – there are any number of paths that can reach the summit.

Those were among the findings from a research series conducted for the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) and published in the July/August 2015 issue of Supply Chain Management Review, and reinforced by research conducted by McKinsey & Company and Kuhne Logistics University.

The latter, for instance, found that while many supply chain management executives had experience in logistics, procurement and sales/marketing, “… a surprising number of supply chain executives are appointed without any previous exposure to SCM…in our sample, supply chain executives spent 88% of their previous career span outside the SCM function.”

Are those findings consistent with readers of Supply Chain Management Review and members of APICS Supply Chain Council? And, if so, who is today’s supply chain manager? And, how did he – or she – navigate to their position on the mountain?

Did they start out in the supply chain going back to their college days, or, as in the McKinsey study, did they come into the profession from other parts of the organization?

Moreover, what are their duties today and how do they see the job changing?

Read more at A Portrait of the Supply Chain Manager

Share your opinions with us in the comment box and subscribe us to get updates in your inbox.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

The Future Of Performance Management Is Not One-Size-Fits-All

In 2013, CEB research found that 86% of organizations had recently made significant changes to their performance management system, or were planning to. In 2014, a Deloitte survey found that 58% percent of companies surveyed did not think performance management was an effective use of time, and many media outlets jumped on the opportunity to air their grievances.

Finally, the rising wave of discontent seemed to crash in 2015, as a slew of large organizations like GE, Accenture, Netflix, and Adobe all scrapped their age-old annual performance management processes in favor of more continuous feedback systems. And many others followed suit.

But, was it the right move for everyone?

Last summer, I wrote an article on this topic myself, urging business leaders to really consider the implications of following these organizations. The issue, in my opinion, is not that these organizations did something wrong. Rather, the risk is that many leaders misinterpreted these stories to mean that they should abandon performance management altogether.

One thing is clear: the future of performance management in the American workplace is still very much in question.

For more insight into this important topic, I recently sat down with a handful of thought leaders in the performance management space, including Rob Ollander-Krane, Senior Director of Organizational Performance Effectiveness at Gap, Inc., Nigel Adams, Global Chief Talent Officer at Razorfish Global, and Amy Herrbold, Senior Director of Organizational Development at Kellogg. Together, we discussed the future of performance management to understand, from their perspective, why changes to this process are long overdue.

Read more at The Future Of Performance Management Is Not One-Size-Fits-All

Write your opinions in the comment box below and subscribe us to get updates in your inbox.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Two thirds of buyers not managing supply chain risk effectively

Almost two thirds of buyers think their organisations are not managing their supply chain risk effectively.

Responding to a mini-poll held during a webinar organised by Supply Management in association with business information publisher Bureau van Dijk, 63 per cent of listeners said they didn’t believe their organisations managed threats in the best way.

Ted Datta, BvD’s strategic account director – London, said a majority of negative response underlined the increasing awareness among companies and buyers of the key importance of good supplier risk management. This was increasingly important because legislation was covering new and wider areas, said Datta.

“Know your suppliers, business partners and third parties,” he said, emphasising buyers needed to be up-to-date with new risks as situations changed every month. Datta said as there was so much information to monitor, companies could segment their supply base to identify key strategic suppliers and monitor those suppliers ‘in real time’ or as frequently as possible depending on their resources. Others could be reviewed in a more structured way, he said.

David Lyon, head of procurement at Cancer Research UK, told the webinar, Enhanced supplier due diligence: the implications for supplier risk management, reputation was vital for a charity and it had to ensure suppliers were aligned with its core purpose. “As an organisation that spends 80 per cent of every pound donated on our core mission of research, we must work hand in hand with all our suppliers,” he said.

Read more at Two thirds of buyers not managing supply chain risk effectively 

What do you think about this topic? Share your opinions with us in the comment box.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone