Supply Chain Index: Evaluating the Consumer Value Network -24 JUN 2014

Supply Chain Index:
Evaluating the Consumer Value Network
6/24/2014
By Lora Cecere
Founder and CEO
Supply Chain Insights LLC
and Abby Mayer
Research Associate
Supply Chain Insights LLC

Contents
Research
Disclosure
Research Methodology and Overview
Executive Overview
Progress on the Supply Chain Index
Progress From 2006
Impact of Complexity
What is a Value Network?
Index Methodology
Balance
Strength
Resiliency
Peers
“Most Improved” Does Not Mean “The Best”
Retail
Apparel
Food & Beverage
Consumer Packaged Goods
Chemical
Paper
Who We Admire
Conclusion
Appendix
Other Reports About The Index
Endnote
About Supply Chain Insights, LLC
About Lora Cecere
About Abby Mayer
3
3
3
6
6
8
9
9
13
13
14
15
15
16
17
19
20
23
25
27
29
29
31
34
34
35
35
35

Research
Supply Chain Metrics That Matter is a series of monthly reports published by the Supply Chain
Insights LLC research group. These reports are a deep focus on a specific industry. This was
preparatory work to understand the patterns of supply chain ratios for supply chain leaders.
The Supply Chain Index is a methodology to evaluate supply chain improvement for a time period for
companies within a peer group. In this report, we apply the Supply Chain Index to companies and
industries that are part of the consumer value network.
Disclosure
Your trust is important to us. As such, we are open and transparent about our financial relationships
and our research process. This independent research is 100% funded by Supply Chain Insights.
These reports are intended for you to read, share, and use to improve your supply chain decisions.
Please share this data freely within your company and across your industry. All we ask for in return is
attribution when you use the materials in this report. We publish under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States and you will find our citation policy
here.
Research Methodology and Overview
The basis of this report is publicly available information from corporate annual reports from the period
of 2006-2012. To complete this analysis, and understand the patterns, we partnered with a research
team from the School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering at Arizona State
University during January-May, 2014 to develop a methodology to analyze trends. Details on this
methodology are outlined in the appendix.
For this analysis, we use supply chain financial ratios as opposed to absolute numbers. These ratios
allow us to compare large companies to small entities, and also compare the progress of companies
operating in different countries using differing currencies. It also allows us to track progress over time.
In Table 1, we share the ratios that we have been mining to understand the trends.
The Supply Chain Index methodology assumes that supply chain progress takes time. In our
research, we find that it takes at least three years to drive change, and that the best improvements
take at least five years. It is for this reason that we analyze the progress of companies for the period
of 2006-2012.

Table 1. Financial Ratios Considered in the Determination of the Supply Chain Index
The methodology is also based on the belief that the supply chain is a complex system with
increasing complexity. We believe that it is the role of the supply chain leader to build and manage
supply chains that can drive year-over-year performance improvements that are balanced, strong and
resilient.
To understand progress over time, the Supply Chain Index is based on the measurement of
improvement or resiliency when two supply chain ratios are plotted over time in an orbit chart. As
shown in Figure 1, the orbit chart enables the visualization of industry patterns. In this case, the
company is Dow Chemical. The average values for the two financial ratios of revenue per employee
(K$) and inventory turns are shown in the box, and the points of improvement are shown as points on
the chart. The best scenario is notated in the upper right-hand corner.

Figure 1. Definition of an Orbit Chart Using The Dow Chemical Company as an Example

Executive Overview
Supply chain management is a balancing act. It requires alignment. This is easier said than done.
The terms lack definition. What is balance? How can companies judge alignment? What defines
improvement? In this series of reports, we want to help.
Day by day leaders are forced to make decisions on priorities and trade-offs like growth, profitability,
cycle, and complexity. The supply chain leader is charged with improving the potential of an
organization at the intersection of operating margins, inventory turns and case-fill rate1
. But are the
choices that are made conscious or unconscious? This is a strong factor in determining supply chain
excellence. It is our hope that through this series of reports the choices can be made consciously,
based on an improved knowledge of what is possible.
In our research, we find that laggards are held hostage and struggle to balance disparate demands
with the threat of throwing the supply chain out of alignment. Success requires a nuanced approach
using a portfolio of carefully selected metrics to ensure success.
While supply chain excellence does not make a company, it is hard for a company to succeed without
it. While the discrete industries are more focused on cycles, the consumer value network is more
focused on the optimization of flows.
Progress on the Supply Chain Index
The Supply Chain Index is a new methodology to measure corporate performance on the Supply
Chain Effective Frontier. It was defined by the Supply Chain Insights team based on 30 months of
research.
We find that supply chain practitioners struggle to manage conflicting priorities. To visualize this, we
built the Effective Frontier Model. As shown in Figure 2, the Effective Frontier visualizes the
competing priorities of every supply chain leader. Growth and profitability should be maximized, cycle
time should be reduced, and complexity should be managed. However, an overweighed focus on any
one of the four categories can wreak havoc on the operations of a supply chain. A focus on a singular
metric can throw the supply chain out of balance.
The Supply Chain Index is designed to measure progress on balance, and metrics alignment. To
build the Index, we chose the metrics of year-over-year growth, return on invested capital (ROIC),
operating margin and inventory turns.

Figure 2. The Supply Chain Effective Frontier
The Index assumes that the three components of balance, strength and resiliency should be valued
equally. Balance tracks the rate of improvement on growth and ROIC, while strength and resiliency
factors are based upon progress in profitability and inventory turns. Together, we believe that these
three factors provide an effective tool to measure supply chain performance and improvement over a
set time period.
Each industry has different potential. It is a mistake to place companies in a spreadsheet and shake
them up without understanding industry potential. In Table 2, we show the average performance for 5
industries in the consumer value network for balance, strength and resiliency. The maturity and
potential of each industry within the consumer value network is very different.
Table 2. Supply Chain Index Consumer Value Network Performance (2006-2012)
In the Index, the highest performing supply chains will record high scores on balance and strength
and low scores on resiliency. For the period of 2006-2012, the consumer packaged goods industry
demonstrated the most improvement on balance (representing high growth rates and utilization of
assets), while paper manufacturers improved strength and apparel performed the best on resiliency.

The consumer packaged goods industry is often cited as a leader in supply chain maturity, but our
research illustrates that there are lessons to be learned from each industry.
In this report, we present the methodology of the Index and detailed results for companies in six
industries comprising the consumer value network. At the end of the report, we summarize some of
the companies that we admire. In future repots, we will take a similar detailed view of the healthcare
and industrial value networks.
Progress From 2006
In this period, the times were good for consumer packaged goods companies and food
manufacturers. Through the recession, more and more consumers abandoned luxury goods for the
basics of CPG. This was also the time of global expansion. However, note that while this industry is
known for the adoption of ‘collaborative practices’ that the total industry has not reduced total costs or
inventory.
Table 3. Supply Chain Index Consumer Value Network Performance (2009-2012)
The time period changes the view. In Table 3, notice how different the performance is for these
industry subgroups in a more recent timeframe. Based upon the shorter period of 2009-2012, apparel
has led on both balance and resiliency improvement while chemical has made the most gains on
strength. This picture is significantly different than the longer perspective in Table 2. What explains
this? The Index is a measurement of supply chain improvement. The starting year and the duration of
the analysis matter. Industries, like chemical, that struggled significantly during the Great Recession
have rebounded with greater gains in more recent years.
Retailers and consumer packaged goods companies are struggling for growth, and the paper sector
that is highly dependent on these industries is also experiencing a lower growth rate. It is harder to
balance ROIC in volume downturns. To stimulate growth, the consumer packaged goods companies

have added products at a record rate. This introduction of new products may drive small growth rates,
but uncontrolled complexity has an adverse effect on performance on the Effective Frontier.
Impact of Complexity
Complexity is present at every level of the supply chain. In that regard, we feel that it is not about
single metrics or single components of the Supply Chain Index. The best company at balance on the
Supply Chain Index is rarely the best at strength or resiliency. We believe a wider perspective on
supply chain excellence, incorporating several different metrics, provides a more holistic measuring
tool when it comes to supply chain improvement.
Supply chain complexity is like cholesterol in the body. In the measurement of cholesterol, the blood
work will determine good and bad cholesterol. The goal is to decrease the sticky, small drops of bad
cholesterol in your bloodstream through diet, exercise and stress reduction. Some people are
naturally predisposed to not have cholesterol problems. The analogy holds for supply chain. Bad
complexity lowers the performance on the Effective Frontier by raising costs and increasing inventory
without improving growth, while good complexity adds growth to the topline without a major impact on
operating margin and inventory turns. Some supply chains are naturally more complex than others.
The more that the supply chain leader can reduce bad complexity and improve good complexity, the
better the expected performance will be on the Index and Effective Frontier.
What Is a Value Network?
A value network is a collection of companies across multiple industries that are aligned to drive value
for a common customer. In the consumer value network, the customer is the shopper in the retail
store, or the buyer on the Internet, or the consumer in the home. The value network is composed of
many industries that are interconnected through physical, information and cash flows. As shown in
Figure 3, the consumer value network definition for this report is the aggregate supply chain
improvement for the supply chain network composed of retailers and manufacturers in apparel,
consumer packaged goods (CPG), food and beverage, chemical, and paper processing industries.
In a value network there are multiple tiers or flows. It is not linear. The further back the trading partner
is in the network, the more difficult it is to get good demand data. The passing of order signals drives
what is known as the bullwhip effect. In the bullwhip effect, the order signal is distorted both in
amplitude and frequency while passing between parties in the value network.

Figure 3. Consumer Value Network Industries Studied in This Report
The industries shown in Figure 3 are not equal partners. They have different profiles for margin,
cycles, velocities, and asset strategies. It is for this reason that we apply the Index to evaluate
industry sectors on an individual basis within the consumer value network.
We live in a world where supply chains, not companies, compete for
market dominance. But companies often have diverging incentives and interests
from their supply chain partners, so when they independently strive to optimize
their individual objectives, the expected result can be compromised.”
Hau L Lee, Triple-A Supply Chains, Harvard Business Review, October
2004
The Index is also based on the principle that it takes time to drive supply chain improvement. When
we interviewed companies on how long it takes to drive improvement, we learned that it takes at least
three years. In parallel, as shown in Table 4, we learned through the analysis of financial ratios, that it
is difficult for companies to sustain year-over-year improvements at the intersection of operating
margin and inventory turns for more than two consecutive years. Notice the drop-off in periods of 3 or
4 consecutive years.
When members of the consumer value network are contrasted in aggregate on an orbit chart, as in
Figure 4, it is clear that no company is making linear progress towards the goal of improved inventory
turns and operating margin.

It is also clear that each company operates in its own zone, or operating potential, at the intersection
of operating margin and inventory turns. This group represents some of the best performers. The
patterns for lower performers are more erratic.
Table 4. Consecutive Improvement of Companies at the Intersection of Operating Margin and Inventory Turns on
the Effective Frontier
It is also clear that despite years of collaborative efforts in this value network, that the aggregate
levels of inventory did not improve, nor did the value network achieve an improvement in margin.
Progress requires focus, vision and discipline. It cannot be an ever-changing program of inventory
this month and a margin focus the next. As most supply chain leaders know, there are finite trade-offs
between operating margin, inventory turns and customer service. Supply chain planning and
continuous improvement initiatives improve the potential of these set points, but they remain
interconnected. In the journey for improvement, most companies will go through periods of transition
like those shown for BASF SE, The Hershey Company and VF Corporation. It is very rare to see
the continuous improvement in operating margin like we see for Colgate-Palmolive Company.

Figure 4. Orbit Chart of Companies in the Consumer Value Network for the Period of 2006-2012
Table 5. Aggregate Performance of Companies within an Industry on the Effective Frontier
On average, the parties in the consumer value network have made different levels of progress in
delivering improvement on the Effective Frontier. For reference, the average improvement for the
period of 2006-2012 is shown by industry in Table 5. While companies have improved efficiency
(average revenue per employee performance), they are struggling at the intersection of inventory

turns and operating margin. The improvement in cash-to-cash has been largely driven by increasing
payables and squeezing the upstream supplier. There are few companies in our analysis that have
made true improvement on the Effective Frontier.
Index Methodology
There are four components of a Supply Chain Index score. Objective performance on balance,
strength, and resiliency each contribute 30% of the final score. Here we explain each measure in
depth. For a more detailed explanation, refer to the Appendix.
Balance
Balance in the supply chain is a constant struggle. Reduced inventory availability wreaks havoc on
customer service levels. Excess inventory leads to high carrying cost and obsolescence of product.
Excessively long days of payables lead to weakened supplier health. The examples are endless:
balance is critical.
Figure 5. Balance
The two metrics that comprise our balance measure are revenue growth and return on invested
capital. Return on invested capital is a less well known metric compared to return on assets. Return
on assets has a narrower focus. Our research indicates that ROIC has better correlation with stock
market capitalization and provides a broad perspective on cash flow generation and profitability
based on shareholder equity.
It is a measurement of the company’s use of capital. The goal is to drive higher returns than the
market rate of the cost of capital.
The balance measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory
of the pattern between growth and ROIC for the period of 2006 to 2012. The overall trajectory of this

vector from Year 0 (2006) to Year 6 (2012) is simplified into a single value which represents the
company’s ability to balance growth and ROIC. Companies that were able to drive improvement in
both metrics score the best while companies that deteriorated in both metrics did the worst. A
negative score on the balance score translates to a supply chain that lost ground on the metrics
compared to the starting year. In this report, we consider two time periods. Our initial analysis
considers performance based upon a time period of 2006-2012. Additional analysis focuses on a
narrower time period of 2009-2012 to examine corporate performance emerging from the Great
Recession.
Strength
A successful supply chain is a strong supply chain. Supply chain leaders deliver year-over-year
improvements. Our research over the past two years has uncovered a rich relationship between
operating margin and inventory turns. For most supply chain leaders, these are some of the most
important measures of their performance. Not only are they important, they are more directly
influenced by supply chain decisions than other broader corporate metrics. It is for this reason they
are the two components of our strength metric.
Figure 6. Strength
The strength measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory
of the pattern between inventory turns and operating margin for the period of 2006 to 2012. Inventory
turn and operating margin performance is graphed on an annual basis from a point originating at the
origin representing performance on the two metrics at Year 0 (2006). The overall trajectory of this
vector from Year 0 (2006) to Year 6 (2012) is simplified into a single value which represents strength.
Improvement on both metrics simultaneously is graphically shown as movement to the upper right
quadrant with increasing values for both inventory turns and operating margin over the period.
The strength metric comprises 30% of the total Supply Chain Index calculation. Sustained
improvement on both inventory turns and operating margin indicates a strong supply chain and is
reflected in a high strength score.

Resiliency
Resiliency is an adjective easily tossed around as one of the key qualities of a successful supply
chain in today’s volatile world. However, the concept of resiliency is more difficult to define, and there
is rarely clarity among stakeholders as to what resiliency is or should be. Here we provide a clear and
concise definition.
As we plotted chart after chart, we could see that some supply chains had very tight patterns at the
intersection of operating margin and inventory turns, and that other companies had wild swings. We
wanted to find a way to measure this. We turned to the experts at ASU. After evaluating several
methods to determine the pattern in the orbit chart, we settled upon the Euclidean mean distance
between the points.
Figure 7. Resiliency
In our March 2014 report: Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: Improving Supply Chain Resiliency, we
define resiliency as the tightness of the pattern at the intersection of inventory turns and operating
margin. These metrics, both critical for any supply chain, are components of both the strength and
resiliency metric in our Supply Chain Index model. The tightness of the pattern (mathematically
speaking, the Euclidean mean distance) indicates the ability of a supply chain to maintain a tight
consistent pattern across these two metrics as the business environment shifts and changes over a
seven year period (2006-2012).
The resiliency metric is similar to the cash-to-cash cycle in that companies should work to minimize
the value. A lower number for resiliency is an indicator of a tighter pattern and greater reliability in
results over the time period.
Peers
The final 10% of the score will be a peer vote contributed by members of the Shaman’s Circle. The
Shaman’s Circle is a group of 350 supply chain leaders from a variety of industries and company
sizes that form an informal networking group within the Supply Chain Insights Community. Over the

course of the summer, each of the leaders in the Shaman’s Circle will be asked to rank the results by
value chain. In September, we will publish the final results for all industries.
The balance, resiliency, and strength values will be populated and stack ranked prior to the vote by
the Shaman’s Circle. Our intention is to create a voting environment that is open to individual
perspective, but also balanced with a full scorecard of objective measures to inform the voting
process. The values of a table like that in Table 6 will be created for each industry peer group for the
period of 2006-2012.
Table 6. Supply Chain Index Ranking System
In the analysis, each industry segment, as defined by NAICS classification codes, will be considered
on an individual basis. As a result, Colgate-Palmolive Company will not be directly compared
against Ford Motor Company or Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The definition of a best-in-class supply chain
varies by the complexities and realities of the operating environment and it is not a one-size-fits-all
business environment.
“Most Improved” Does Not Mean “The Best”
It is important to clarify what the Supply Chain Index is or is not. It is a methodology for ranking supply
chains by industry and NAICS code. The measurement is one of relative improvement. It is critical to
note that the most improved over a specific time period does not mean best over that same time
period. Industries like medical device, that have historically underperformed on supply chain
processes, have greater upside for improvement than companies like consumer electronics who have
led the charge for many years. Oftentimes, the results can be surprising and this distinction is critical.

Table 7 illustrates average performance for the six industries comprising the consumer value network
over the time period of 2006-2012. It is clear that different industries started at, and progressed at,
different rates throughout the seven years. Part of this is explained by the constraints of a business
environment; another is the level of focus on supply chain within the companies.
Table 7. Industry Average (2006-2012)
The time period of study can also significantly impact the upside potential of an industry. Earlier,
Table 2 illustrated the performance of the chemical industry over the period of 2006-2012. With a
strength value of -0.03, the chemical industry ranked 5th out of 6 industries. However, for the
narrower period of 2009-2012, the rebound from the Great Recession, the chemical industry
demonstrated the most improvement in strength with a score of 0.15. In fact, the degree to which the
industry struggled in the intervening years created an opportunity for the industry to strongly recover
beginning in 2009. It is for this reason our analysis in this report focuses on two time periods for each
industry: 2006-2012 and 2009-2012. For some industries and companies, their comparative ranking
is similar across both time periods; for others, the results are starkly different.
Retail
The retail industry occupies a downstream location in the consumer value network enjoying a
significant advantage with direct customer interaction. Use of loyalty data, merchandising, and
assortment planning creates a distinct advantage for this industry. However, retailers struggle with
low margins and a need to turn cycles quickly.

The performance of 14 large retailers from 2006-2012 is shown in Table 8. One might expect
economies of scale to drive better supply chain processes in larger companies. However, the revenue
values demonstrate that companies of all sizes are ranked widely throughout the Index. The retailers
that have defined and adapted new formats perform better on the Index.
Table 8. The Supply Chain Index: Retail (2006-2012)
Table 9. The Supply Chain Index: Retail (2009-2012)

To understand the methodology, let’s take an example. In the 2006-2012 period, J Sainsbury plc
ranks first in both balance and strength. However, they faltered in resiliency demonstrating large
swings in operating margin and inventory turns over the period. A narrower perspective starting in
2009 indicates that things only got worse for Sainsbury. The lack of resiliency in the longer time
period is exacerbated in the period of 2009-2012.
Sainsbury falls down the list, and both balance and strength scores are much lower. It’s not just
Sainsbury. UK retailers in general have struggled in the shorter time period with a challenging
economic environment. US retailers have done better, but not significantly so.
The Index shows that drug and dollar stores are doing better. A rising tide lifts all boats. With a
greater urban population, and growth of the dollar store format, these retailers are growing faster. In
periods of growth, it is easier to drive higher ROIC performance.
Apparel
Even within a single industry, all companies are not created equal. The apparel industry is generally
bifurcated into two sub industries: fashion and basic commodity goods. The business environment
and brand power are significantly different for the two. The strategy is different. Companies in both
sub-industries have succeeded, but through different means. Table 10 illustrates performance for the
industry for the period of 2006-2012.
Table 10. The Supply Chain Index: Apparel (2006-2012)
In 2006-2012, VF Corp leads the way in the Index overall with high scores in all three components.
Rarely does a single company rank first on all three measures. However in order to rank high overall,

a company must balance all three measures. Notice that Hanesbrands Inc. ranks number four
behind more brand driven companies like VF, Ralph Lauren and Nike.
A narrower set of years illustrates a slightly different picture. Hanesbrands and Under Armour,
through investments in supply chain planning and downstream data, climb the charts. It is clear that
the relatively young supply chain of Under Armour is maturing and gaining ground.
Table 11. The Supply Chain Index: Apparel (2009-2012)
Finally, consider the resiliency scores of the apparel manufacturers compared to the retailers profiled
earlier. Retail has some of the worst resiliency scores while apparel has some of the best. This is
interesting because the retailer has some of the shortest supply chains while apparel has some of the
longest. The resiliency metric is arguably the one most directly related to supply chain maturity and
complexity, with supply chain leaders exerting significant control over both operating margin and
inventory turns performance.
Food & Beverage
Food & beverage manufacturers struggle with the unique challenges of volatility in commodity prices,
high seasonal fluctuations from both supply and demand sides, as well as regional food profiles that
make global management challenging. Figure 8 illustrates several key commodity price patterns since
1997. Not only are prices rising, but so too is volatility.

Figure 8. Commodity Volatility (1997-2013)
For food & beverage manufacturers, performance across both time periods, 2006-2012 and 2009-
2012, is similar at the top of the rankings. Campbell Soup Company and Hershey Co place one and
two respectively in both time periods. Both companies have invested in significant demand-driven
initiatives. Campbell has focused on improving reliability and decreasing complexity while Hershey
has focused on the use of downstream data and more advanced demand planning techniques.
Further down the rankings, the story is more complex. Table 12 shows performance for the period of
2006-2012.
Economics of scale are nonexistent in the food & beverage rankings. Relatively small companies
have ranked high, while larger giants such as Danone, Kraft, PepsiCo and Kellogg Company have
struggled to make improvements. In fact, this is one industry where we find that a smaller company
has an advantage on the Effective Frontier.

Table 12. The Supply Chain Index: Food & Beverage (2006-2012)
Note the differences between competitors. While General Mills, Inc. scores high on the 2006-2012
Index, its competitor Kellogg Company scores poorly. General Mills is a company that we admire
for their use of technology. The company implemented ERP once and well, while Kellogg is
undergoing their third implementation of ERP.
A regional focus, as opposed to global governance, can be an advantage for these companies where
customer preferences vary so significantly across the globe. Rankings for the 2009-2012 period are
shown in Table 14.

Table 14. The Supply Chain Index: Food & Beverage (2009-2012)
Consumer Packaged Goods
While consumer packaged goods manufacturers are often considered as peers to food & beverage
manufacturers, we believe the industries are significant enough to analyze separately. Consumer
packaged goods manufacturers have led the charge within the consumer value network on supply
chain maturity. The industry is being attacked by retailers with house brands, and new start-ups in
emerging economies. Growth is stalled. Marketing in new product launch is no longer as easy as
putting a new product on a TV show and driving demand.
Because of this level of maturity and advanced processes, the industry as a whole ranked low in
Tables 2 and 3. When supply chain excellence has been a focus for decades, there is less room for
improvement than for companies and industries that have lagged in a focus on supply chain. Table 15
illustrates performance for the industry from 2006-2012.

Table 15. The Supply Chain Index: Consumer Packaged Goods (2006-2012)
What is the story here? Overall, nontraditional consumer packaged goods companies have made the
most progress. The beauty category continued to grow post-recession, while basic consumer goods
are being pressed for more value-based pricing and struggling for growth. As a result, companies like
Estee Lauder Companies Inc, L’oreal S.A. and Beiersdorf rank high on the Index for 2006-2012.
Table 16 illustrates performance for the period of 2009-2012. In the shorter time period, L’oreal S.A.
climbs to the top even with a negative balance performance of -0.21. In fact, all but three of the 17
companies lose ground from 2009 to 2012 on their balance performance (vector trajectory of growth
and return on invested capital).
While P&G is believed to be the de facto supply chain leader, the company has lost significant ground
on operating margin over the last six years, which hurts the company’s rating on the Supply Chain
Index. In contrast, while Colgate has driven 42 consecutive quarters of operating margin results,
P&G’s investments in demand sensing and advanced planning, along with a focus on inventory, has
improved the inventory levels by ten days when contrasted with Colgate’s. The rising star of the
industry is Unilever.

Table 16. The Supply Chain Index: Consumer Packaged Goods (2009-2012)
Consumer packaged goods companies have a long legacy of delivering supply chain excellence.
Their performance was relatively stable through the Great Recession. This story of stability in
operations and supply chain performance is very different from the one experienced by most
chemical companies.
Chemical
Chemical companies operate in a downstream orientation of the supply chain and experience the
worst of the bullwhip effect. The Great Recession hit hard and many companies struggled to
persevere. During the worst of it, Du Pont took a significant portion of their footprint offline while Dow
persevered through the Rohm and Haas acquisition and the K-Dow deal.
Over the period, the most resilient company (Syngenta AG) turned in a resiliency score of 0.14.
Overall, the industry averaged 0.85. Compare these large resiliency scores with the 2009-2012
analysis.

Table 17. The Supply Chain Index: Chemical (2006-2012)
In the more recent time period, the most resilient company was still Syngenta AG with a score of
0.10 amid an industry average of 0.77. In addition, the giants of the industry like Dow Chemical
Company, BASF SE and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company made significant progress.
These large companies were hit hard in the Great Recession and have made progress since 2009.
It is hard to turn a big ship. At over $101billion in annual revenue, BASF’s improved performance
across the board on the Index is impressive. The company’s focus on supply chain excellence and
the use of new forms of analytics played a major role.

Table 18. The Supply Chain Index: Chemical (2009-2012)
Paper
Similar to the chemical industry, the paper industry is located downstream and far removed from the
ultimate end-consumer. It is an asset-intensive industry that is closely coupled to the demand of
downstream partners. These companies are not known as supply chain leaders. Instead, their focus
has been on manufacturing excellence and transportation efficiency.
As can be seen in the charts on the Index performance for the last seven years, there is significant
room for supply chain improvement within the industry. Performance for 2006-2012 is shown in Table
19.
The decline in growth for CPG and food & beverage manufacturers had an impact. As a result, the
paper industry struggled with balance in both time periods, i.e. 2006-2012 and 2009-2012. The
struggle for balance was worse for the second period. The vast majority of companies in this peer
group for the time frames lost ground on both growth and return on invested capital. With low or
negative growth, everything becomes significantly more challenging. In this tough environment, a
conservative company like Crown Holdings demonstrates the greatest improvement.

Table 19. The Supply Chain Index: Paper (2006-2012)
Table 20. The Supply Chain Index: Paper (2009-2012)
Through great work in Sales and Operations Planning, Sonoco Products, a major provider to P&G
moves up the stack of relative peer ratings while a supply chain laggard, Rock-Tenn Company, falls
to the bottom of the list.

Who We Admire
In doing this work, companies will ask us, “Who do you admire? Where can we learn the most about
the definition of supply chain excellence?” Our answer may surprise you. Here we give our response
by category:
 Retail: The work by CVS Caremark Corporation, Walgreen Company and Wal-Mart Stores
remains impressive. Target’s turnaround is also noteworthy.
 Apparel: Under Armour Inc is a fabulous story of supply chain excellence. And, while VF
Corp falls down the chart, we feel that it is due to the uneven progress on supply chain
excellence in their coalitions. The progress of Hanesbrands and Columbia Sportswear
Company are also notable.
 Food & Beverage: We love the story of The Hershey Company turnaround. While
Campbell’s work is significant, it did not happen at the same pace of Hershey. The
improvements by The J. M. Smucker Company and Nestle SA are also impressive.
 Consumer Packaged Goods: The work by Beiersdorf AG is a classic supply chain turnaround
story driven by hard work and focus. While Colgate and P&G’s progress is stalled, the
question is, “Can the Unilever work be sustained?”
 Chemical: Our pick in chemical is BASF SE. The improvement in BASF, a very large
company, in a turbulent time is also a great case study of supply chain excellence.
 Paper: While Crown Holdings, Inc. is a classic case study of a focus on maximizing
profitability, we are impressed by the results of Sonoco Products Company. They made
progress despite the major downturn in growth of their customers and the aggressive shift in
days of payables by their upstream customers.
Conclusion
The goal of the Supply Chain Index is to provide a tool for the measurement of supply chain
improvement over time. It is a measurement of improvement. It should never be used to determine
who does supply chain best. Supply chain excellence is less about the destination than it is about the
journey.
In this value network, progress in supply chain excellence has slowed. Companies are in a transition.
While the last decade was about global expansion, this decade is about defining excellence in global

operations. To accomplish this goal, many companies will need to adopt new technologies and
practices to redefine processes outside-in, from the customer back. Investment in horizontal
processes like S&OP, new forms of analytics for market sensing and orchestration, and the evolution
of B2B networks offers promise. However, one thing is clear: the evolution of collaborative processes
by the parties in this value network may have improved individual buy/sell relationships, but it did not
improve the basics of the metrics that underlie the consumer value network.
Overall, the industries have pushed cost and waste backwards in the value chain without redefining
for value. Let’s take an example. While the cost of capital is much better for P&G than Rock-Tenn,
the elongation of payables without the improvement in a demand signal is pushing these costs
backwards into the supply chain versus a redefinition for value. As a result, it is difficult for all to make
progress on the Effective Frontier.

Appendix
The specific methodology and development of the three metrics is diagrammed below with the
assistance of Dr. George Runger and Bahareh Azarnoush of Arizona State University.
Balance
The definition of balance is based on the analysis of a scatter plot, or orbit chart over time, of revenue
growth and return on invested capital for a specific company. The balance measure (B) is defined
similar to the strength measure but now at the intersection of revenue growth and return on invested
capital. Let iREV denote the revenue growth of the ith
time period, iROIC denote the return on
invested capital of the ith
time period and n denote the total number of periods under consideration.
Thus balance is defined as





 




1
1
1
1
1
1
ROIC
ROICROIC
REV
REVREV
n
B nn
.
Strength
The definition of strength is based on the analysis of a scatter plot, or orbit chart over time, of
operating margin and inventory turns for a specific company. Consider a scatter plot of operating
margin and inventory turns for a specific company. Let iOM denote the operating margin of the ith
time
period (e.g. ith
year), iIT denote the inventory turns of the ith
time period and n denote the total
number of periods under consideration. The strength measure (S) is defined as





 




1
1
1
1
1
1
IT
ITIT
OM
OMOM
n
S nn
The denominator reflects that there are n-1 differences between n time periods. Figure A depicts the
intersection of operating margin and inventory turns for an example company. The difference in
operating margin and inventory turns between the first and last time period is depicted.

Figure A. Inventory Turns and Operating Margin Intersection for an Example Company
Resiliency
Consider a scatter plot of operating margin and inventory turns for a specific company. Let dij denote
the Euclidean distance between a pair of points i and j and let m denote the total number of pairs.
The resiliency measure (R) is defined as the mean distance of all possible pairs of points at the
intesection. That is,


i ij
ijd
m
R
1
Figure B shows an example of the operating margin and inventory turns intersection for an example
company. Table A shows the distances between every possible pair of points at the intersection. The
resiliency is calculated from the mean of the distance values and is equal to 0.7335.

Figure B. Inventory Turns and Operating Margin Intersection for an Example Company
Table A. Euclidean Distances for an Example Company.
0.013255
0.18865 0.17549
1.061544 1.0484 0.872912
0.901407 0.888264 0.712778 0.16014
0.766595 0.753434 0.577946 0.295086 0.135114
1.630622 1.617476 1.441988 0.569077 0.729216 0.864097
Alternative Measures Considered
Principal components analysis (PCA) is a traditional method to summarize multi-dimensional data.
We considered measures commonly applied with PCA based on eigenvalues and eigenvectors. (e.g.,
the condition index, percentage of variance explained by the first principal component). Although
these measures were reasonable they did not distinguish between orbit plots that were visually
different as well as simpler approaches. We also considered other measures based on the distances
(e.g., sum, maximum, minimum and the coefficient of variation of the distances). The mean distance

was finally selected to measure the compactness of a set of points. In fact, a similar measure called
cohesion is frequently used in cluster analysis to measure the compactness of a set of points. Rather
than taking the sum of distances (as in cohesion), we consider the mean to account for the potentially
different number of points for each company.
Other Reports About The Index
Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: Improving Supply Chain Resiliency
Published by Supply Chain Insights in March 2014
Supply Chain Index: Improving Strength, Balance and Resiliency
Published by Supply Chain Insights in April 2014
Endnote:
1 While we would love to profile case fill rate performance, we struggle to find an industry-to-industry benchmark that
can be reliably used for comparison. As a result, we focus in the report on only corporate balance sheet data.

About Supply Chain Insights, LLC
Founded in February, 2012 by Lora Cecere, Supply Chain Insights LLC is focused on delivering
independent, actionable, and objective advice for supply chain leaders. If you need to know
which practices and technologies make the biggest difference to corporate performance, turn to us.
We are a company dedicated to this research. We help you understand supply chain trends, evolving
technologies and which metrics matter.
About Lora Cecere
Lora Cecere (twitter ID @lcecere) is the Founder of Supply Chain Insights LLC and
the author of popular enterprise software blog Supply Chain Shaman currently read
by 5,000 supply chain professionals. She also writes as a Linkedin Influencer and
is a a contributor for Forbes. Her book, Bricks Matter, (co-authored with Charlie
Chase) published on December 26th
, 2012. She is currently working on a second
book, Metrics That Matter, to publish in 2014.
With over ten years as a research analyst with AMR Research, Altimeter Group,
and Gartner Group and now as a Founder of Supply Chain Insights, Lora understands supply chain.
She has worked with over 600 companies on their supply chain strategy and speaks at over 50
conferences a year on the evolution of supply chain processes and technologies. Her research is
designed for the early adopter seeking first mover advantage.
About Abby Mayer
Abby Mayer (twitter ID @indexgirl), Research Associate is one of the original
members of the Supply Chain Insights LLC team. She is also the author of the
newly-founded blog, Supply Chain Index. Her supply chain interests include
connecting financial performance and supply chain excellence, as well as talent
management issues and emerging markets. Abby has a B.A. in International
Politics and Economics from Middlebury College and a M.S. in International Supply
Chain Management from Plymouth University in the United Kingdom. She has also
completed a thru-hike of Vermont’s 280 mile Long Trail, the oldest long distance
hiking trail in the United States. As part of the planning and food prep process, she became interested
in supply chain management when she was asked to predict hunger pangs for the entire three-week trip
before departure. If that isn’t advanced demand planning, what is?!?!

Supply Chain Index: Evaluating the Consumer Value Network -24 JUN 2014

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Supply Chain Index: Evaluating the Consumer Value Network -24 JUN 2014 (20)

More from Lora Cecere (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Supply Chain Index: Evaluating the Consumer Value Network -24 JUN 2014