Supply Chain Evolution by the Numbers
Bernard J. LaLonde -- Supply Chain Management Review, 3/1/1998
When I was a sophomore in college, I recall sitting in my first university-level statistics class. On the first day our professor cautioned all of us with the words, "Always remember that figures don't lie, but liars figure." Many of the statistical truths that we learned in that first semester are now only dim and fuzzy memories. Yet the truth about figures not lying, but liars figuring, has stuck with me.
This sensitivity was particularly acute as I explored a new set of numbers with special significance for supply chain management. I would like to share with you the results of an analysis of the programs from the last three annual Council of Logistics Management meetings (1995, 1996, 1997). My focus centered on the role that supply chain content and presentation have played in this annual gathering—and the broader implications for the function itself and the professionals working in this field.
To set the stage for these observations, first a word about the Council of Logistics Management and the significance of its annual meeting. For 35 years, CLM (which until 1985 was known as the National Council of Physical Distribution Management) has been the leading organization of logistics and supply chain professionals. Over the past few years, the group has enjoyed substantial growth, both in North America and internationally. At last count, membership had exceeded the 14,000 mark.
The annual Council of Logistics Management meeting, which last year attracted more than 6,300 attendees, is a bellwether of logistics and supply chain trends. The topics covered, titles of attendees, general session speakers, and industries in attendance all provide strong indicators of where the profession is headed.
In analyzing program content from a meeting such as this, we first have to recognize that we're dealing with a biased sample. The program chairperson and the track chairs bring their own set of biases. Certainly, the speakers have their particular biases as well. All of this no doubt influences the title and structure of the sessions offered.
Having said that, the program content is a valid database from which observations can be made and conclusions drawn. Though not a scientific sample, by any means, it is at a minimum a useful indicator of trends and interests. The first cut of our analysis identified sessions that had the words "Supply Chain" in the title. The interesting results, presented in Exhibit 1, show a steady and significant increase in the number of such sessions. Clearly, this reflects a corresponding interest in the topic.
That's exactly what seemed to have happened in 1995 when more than half of the supply chain sessions were joint presentations by consultant/client teams. But in 1996 that percentage declined, and by 1997 it had dipped even further to just over a third. (Actually, the absolute number of consultant/client sessions has remained in the 14–16 range. The percentages have decreased because the total number of supply chain sessions has increased, from 30 in 1995 to 52 in 1997.)
At this point, you're no doubt asking: "Why the drop in consultant/client presentations? And if the percentage of consultant/client sessions is going down, who is presenting the rest of the supply chain sessions?"
Figures again come to our rescue. Though the data in Exhibit 2 suggest that the consultant/client "show and tell" sessions are becoming less popular as a method of demonstrating supply chain relationships, Exhibits 2 and 3 taken together show a significant shift in the types of presentations that have evolved. After the consultant/client sessions, third-party logistics service suppliers and their customers represent the largest segment of supply chain presenters at 17 percent, while practitioners presenting alone came in at 12 percent. The figures strongly suggest that the third-party providers are answering the call to forge new relationships with their channel partners. They also say that practitioners are more willing to share their views and experiences without the support of consultants.
The Rising Tide
It is interesting and perhaps important to speculate on some of the broader issues suggested by these numbers. First, third-party service suppliers seem to be emerging as strong new players in the supply chain arena. Analysis of both the number and content of the 1997 CLM sessions reveals that the third parties emphasized the importance of facilitating supply chain processes all the way from vendor to customer. They aggressively attempted to position their role as central in the development and implementation of these processes for their partners.
A similar observation may be made about the consultants represented at the 1997 program. While consultant/client supply chain sessions declined as a percentage of the total, the percentage of consultants presenting without client participation rose sharply last year. Many of these sessions focused on "concept" or best practice, positioning the consulting firm as a thought leader in supply chain processes. This represented a significant shift in session emphasis—from client-focused in 1995 to concept-focused two years later.
Overall, the numbers reflect a rising tide of interest in supply chain concepts and practices. Granted, the analysis involves a limited sample. But it's a sample that incorporates some of the organizations and people who are on the cutting edge of logistics and supply chain management best practices. To professionals in this field, the CLM numbers point to the exciting opportunities of managing the extended, integrated supply chain. The challenge for tomorrow is to stay on top of the wave of technology and business practices that will lead to those opportunities.
| Author Information |
| Bernard J. "Bud" LaLonde is professor emeritus of logistics at Ohio State University. |
View All Blogs
