Don't play it safe...

'Don't play it safe when it comes to Supply Chain Risk Management' - that is the title of Accenture's new 'global operations megatrends study'. The analysist at Accenture took a look at SCRM to identify the current top risks for supply chains and also the functions or areas within a supply chain that seem to be most at risk. Accenture also aims to highlight some best-practices top companies are implementing when it comes to setting-up and effective SCRM.Thus, let's take a look at the results of the study...

The respondents that were contacted within the survey are more than 1,000 senior managers; most of them are from large global companies from all over the world.

Figure 1: Greatest sources of supply chain risk, source: Accenture: Don't play it safe when it comes to Supply Chain Risk Management, 2014, p. 5.

When focusing on the top souces for supply chains risks, the study shows that the most important risk  source is IT (see figure 1). Two contributing factors are mentioned: On one hand, companies have failed to set-up agile IT organizations that can quickly react to market demand changes. On the other hand, too much data is insufficient or even missing or not accessible - leading to a still low level of visibility within the supply chain. Disasters, however, although often leading to high negative consequences, are not ranked as a top risk - probably due to their low probability of occurrence.

Figure 2: Approaches to risk management, source: Accenture: Don't play it safe when it comes to Supply Chain Risk Management, 2014, p. 6.

More than 75 % of the companies see operational risk management as important or even very important. This importance can be seen in the different approaches to risk management (see figure 2). The most important approaches are having a risk management in place, the use of alternative partners when needed, and the use of IT and organization to reach a visibility regarding risks. It is interesting and seems contradictory that approaches to visibility are mentioned as some risk management measure, whereas there is still a high degree of intransparency in supply chains - as mentioned above in the sections on top risks.

Accenture reports about very promising quantitative results of risk management, which can be measured by the return on investment (ROI). 21 % of the companies reached an ROI of between 51 % and 100 % from their investments in SCRM. Another 7 % of the enterprises are proud to have an ROI of even more than 100 %. However, the the question remains, how an ROI from specific actions can be measured without taking into account additional influences (from outside risk management activities).

Accenture's analysts identified three key practices that support and enhance the effectiveness of SCRM:

1. Leaders (the abovementioned group of companies with an ROI of more than 100 %) take care that SCRM gets a top priority in a company. They support this approach by installing a risk management officer, by developing SCRM skills of employees, and other practices.
2. Leading companies show a higher degree of centralization when it comes to SCRM. 43 % of the leaders have a centralized risk management, whereas only 37 % of the other companies have risk management centralized.
3. Leaders are considerably investing into SCRM, especially to increase the end-to-end visibility within the supply chain. 60 % of the leaders increase their investments in this area by more than 20 %. Only 23 % of the other companies have planned such high investments.

The study shows interesting results. It can be used to promote SCRM in an enterprise. Also, some best-practice approaches are mentioned. On the other hand, since most of the respondents are managers from large companies, it is not clear if those results would hold true also for small and medium enterprises. Also, the identification of 'leaders' by the ROI on SCRM-related investments seems to be at least questionable. This also concerns some of the best-practice approaches (especially the question of centralization/decentralization of SCRM).

The full study 'Don't play it safe when it comes to Supply Chain Risk Management', published by Accenture in 2014, can be downloaded from Accenture's website: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Global-Megatrends-Operations-Supply-Chain-Risk-Management.pdf

DHL's Swiss Knife?

Supply chains are extremely complex constructions. That has implications for SCRM: Due to the multi-tier character of supply chains with many thousands transactions (material, information, and financial flows) the detection of risk developments in operations is difficult. Because a broad variety of operational databases and applications is used, transparency regarding the abovementioned flows is almost impossible.

Figure 1: Visualization of a company's supply chain, Source: http://www.dpdhl.com/content/dam/presse/img/2014/dhl-resilience360-world-map-600.jpg

DHL now promises to solve ‘mission impossible’ by the introduction of ‘Resilience360’. Resilience360 is said to allow for a holistic view and the real-time identification of possible risks. The application also suggests alternatives or counteractions for identified risk; thus, it seems to be a decision support system. This and more information can be found on www.dhl.com/Resilience. The site promises a lot. So far, many of the information are of relatively generic character. Also, the video shown on the DHL’s website is a nicely computer-animated movie, but contains little concrete information.

DHL also provides two case studies: The first focusing on the use of Resilience360 at ZF, one of the big automotive suppliers; the other talking about how Resilience360 has been used at DuPont. Again, many generic topics are mentioned in the case study, so the level of detail is (understandably) low. However, it is irritating that some identical pictures are used in both case studies.

Risk categories used for Resilience360, Source: http://www.dpdhl.com/content/dam/presse/img/2014/dhl-resilience360-risk-wheel-600.jpg

In the end, we only get a shallow first impression of this ‘all in one solution’ by DHL. Too much information is of generic character. The functionality seems to be impressive, but not much details were revealed (for example, no real screenshots were shown). Thus, an evaluation of the capabilities of Resilience360 is not possible. Another question that has not been addressed in the reports is how the data sources are included: If a global player like DuPont or ZF intends to gain more transparency, they must collect a huge amount of data and integrate not only direct suppliers, but partners on each level of the supply chain. It would be interesting to understand, if and how those difficulties are solved by Resilience360.

Sources:

• DHL International GmbH: DHL Resilience360 – Managing Risks in Your Supply Chains, http://www.dhl.com/resilience (2014).
• DHL: Holistic View of DuPont Supply Chain Improves Resilience and Avoid Costs, http://www.dhl.com/content/dam/downloads/g0/logistics/resilience360/dupont_case_study_en.pdf (2014).
• DHL: DHL and ZF Drive Down Supply Chain Risk with Resilience360, http://www.dhl.com/content/dam/downloads/g0/logistics/resilience360/zf_case_study_Apr2014.pdf (2014).
• Greenway, T.: How Safe is Your Supply Chain? In: Deutsche Post DHL Headquarters: Delivered, Issue 1/2014, p. 23-25.
• Deutsche Post AG: DHL Resilience360 - neues Instrument für Risikomanagement in der Logistik, http://www.dpdhl.com/de/presse/pressemitteilungen/2014/dhl_resilience360_risikomanagement.html (2014).

Risk Management is a waste of time! And of resources. And of effort. And of money. And...

Very often, the benefits of risk management are underestimated. Or, managers do not see any benefits of using risk management for their company. Statements as "Risk management only creates additional cost" or "Risk management does not create any revenues" are often heard. (Personally, I read such statements quite frequently, when receiving answer sheets within our empirical research projects.) This statements are then used as arguments for not spending effort, time, and money to set-up or develop risk management. Very well done!

But: The view mentioned above is proven to be wrong! Aon plc., together with Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, have developed a so-called 'risk maturity index' (details can be found on Aon's website). The latest report on the risk matury index, which uses data from more than 360 publicly traded companies, shows some interesting results - especially when focusing on the benefits of risk management.

Figure 1: Risk Maturity Classification; Source: Bourdon, T. W.: Aon Risk Maturity Index - Insight Report, November 2013, p. 6.

Based on a set of 40 different criteria, companies were classified by their answers into 9 different categories (see Figure 1). Only .7 % of the companies reached the maximum of 5 points on the index, and were classified as 'advanced'. However, more than 50 % of the companies show unsufficient capabilities for risk management - and are classified as 'basic' or 'initial/lacking'.

Figure 2: Stock Price Volatility by Risk Maturity Rating; Source: Bourdon, T. W.: Aon Risk Maturity Index - Insight Report, November 2013, p. 63.

Figure 2 shows, that in general there is a negative correlation between risk management maturity and the stock price volatility. Thus, companies with a state-of-the-art risk management fear far less volatility of their stock price than companies with a 'basic' or 'initial' risk management.

Figure 3: Implications of the Greek Fiscal Crisis 2010; Source: Bourdon, T. W.: Aon Risk Maturity Index - Insight Report, November 2013, p. 5.

It seems obvious that economic problems in a country or a region have implication on the profitability of companies. Thus, enterprises are affected by economic crisis. However, the report shows, that companies with a sophisticated risk management system in place are less affected by such a crisis than companies with a low risk maturity index. Figure 3 shows results focusing on the implication of the Greek fiscal crisis in 2010 for the stock price of enterprises. Again: The study shows, that a well-implemented risk management contributes strongly to the economic situation of a company.

Figure 4: Implications of the Japanese Earthquake 2011; Source: Bourdon, T. W.: Aon Risk Maturity Index - Insight Report, November 2013, p. 5.

Those statements also hold for the implications of catastrophes for companies. Figure 4 demonstrates how enterprises with a well-established risk management are far better off after the Japanese earthquake in 2011 than companies with a less developed risk management. In this case, we can also see how risk management can contribute to more or less stable and resilient supply chains.

The report 'Aon Risk Maturity Index - Insight Report, November 2013', written by T. W. Bourdon et al., can be downloaded from Aon's website: http://www.aon.com/risk-services/thought-leadership/report-rmi-insight-nov-2015.jsp.

Water, Water!!!

Almost every transformation process that is required for production also needs more or less water - from the growth of raw materials, to the production of materials and components, to the distribution of products to the customers. Without water, many of those processes would not be possible. Thus, scarcity of water can be a risk for supply chains.

The PRI Association (http://www.unpri.org/), in collaboration with World Wildlife Fund (WWF), PwC Germany and the PRI investor steering committee on water risks, has published recent findings on water risks in agricultural supply chains.

Figure 1: Distribution of the world’s water (source: PRI: PRI-coordinated engagement on water risks in agricultural supply chains - Investor guidance document, p. 7.)

The researchers state, that only less than 1 % of the world's water reserves are both suitable and accessible to humans. At the same time, the demand for water has dramatically increased. In 2050, 40 % of the global population will be living in areas, where severe water scarcity occurs, so the estimates of the experts.

However, the reports focuses on water-related risks in supply chains. To identify the risks for certain companies in supply chains, the researchers followed a certain methodology. First, they identifed on a global level crops and river basins facing the most significant water risks, which were then further aggregated. This led to a list of 25 key crop/country combinations with high water risks. Then, appropriate companies were identified for the concrete assessment of water risks. A so-called 'ESCHER approach' (an extended input/output model) was applied to estimate the water consumption in water stressed regions. Although the report mentions that there were some limitations of the model and the data, it also highlights that the value of this approach is to actually provide a first quantitative estimate of water consumption and water risks in certain supply chains. Figure 2 shows two examples of supply chains in different sectors and the water-related risks.

Figure 2: Water consumption of example sectors across supply chain tiers (source: PRI: PRI-coordinated engagement on water risks in agricultural supply chains - Investor guidance document, p. 9.)

Beside those quantitative results, there are further conclusions from the output of the calculations:

• There is, unsurprisingly, a strong association between water usage and revenue.
• There is some significant exposure to certain crop/country combinations, e.g. for Indian wheat.
• The biggest water consumers are companies in the agricultural sector, in food retail, in packaged foods and meats as well as soft drinks companies. 
• A relatively low consumption in water scare regions had been calcluated for apparel, luxury goods, brewers as well as distillers and vintners.

The researchers list a variety of questions, that can be addressed to bridge research to application, and even more important to support a water risk management. The focus on:

• Awareness and relevance, for example asking where in the value chain the company is placed or if it is facing end-customers. Another question is how the company would rate the current and future importance of water risk for the continuity and pricing of its key commodity supplies.
• Water risk assessment, e.g. asking at what level and at what geographic scale the company undertakes water risk assessments.
• Impact, for example asking what percentage of key commodity spend is exposed to substantive water risk.
• Response, e.g. asking what proportion of key suppliers the company requires to report on their water use, risks and management?
• Disclosure, for example asking if the company discloses its water risk and management response?

Finally, the report proposes to apply a water risk management framework, developed by WWF. This framework consists of 5 steps:

1. Water awareness,
2. Knowledge of impact,
3. Internal action (engagement with employees, buyers, and suppliers),
4. Collective action (engagement with other organizations), and
5. Influence government.

The full report "PRI-coordinated engagement on water risks in agricultural supply chains - Investor guidance document" can be found on the PRI's website: http://www.unpri.org/publications/#WATER-RISKS.

Thanks to Christian Kalley for pointing me to the report.

-----

You might also be interested in a report by WWF about water-related risks in Germany. A summary of the report can be found on RiskNet's website (http://www.risknet.de/topics/risknews/das-unterschaetzte-risiko/f12c9f4bfbd07ffec7c5000f86fbc614/, in German). The report can be downloaded on the website of WWF Germany: http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/WWF_Studie_Wasserrisiko_Deutschland.pdf.

Risk Management in the Logistics Industry - Still Room for Development/Risikomanagement in der Logistikbranche - noch viel Luft nach oben

Since 2009, my colleague Prof. Dr. Dirk Lohre of Heilbronn University and myself have been conducting surveys in the logistics industry to assess the degree of maturity of risk management (RM) in the logistics industry.

Our latest survey had been conducted already in 2013; however, the results were published only a few weeks ago. They can be found in the International Journal "Transport and Logistics".

What are key results of the survey?

Figure 1: Use of RM in the logistics industry

1. The current top risks for managers in the logistics industry are the competitive conditions in the in industry, risks involved with human resources (espc. truck drivers), and operational risks. They also see those three risks as top future risks. Beside those risks, they also see rising/volatile energy prizes as a thread.
2. Only a little more than half of the companies that responded to the questionaire have already an RM system in place (see figure 1). Some have planned the implementation of RM within the next two years. However, every sixth enterprise has not planned to set-up RM at all.
3. Although both HR and operational risks are seen as top threads, only less than half the companies continously apply RM to those functions. The rest either applies RM methods sporadically or not at all (see figure 2). In contrast, the application rate of RM in accounting/controlling and for the general management is tremendously higher.
4. When asked for what well-established methods/tools are used for RM, more than two third of the managers answered, that brainstorming, check lists, and interviews of experts and/or employees are the most common approaches. It is noteworthy, that FMEA and risk maps are used only by less than 30 % of the logistics enterprises. Other techniques are rarely used at all.

As a conclusion we draw from our 3rd empirical survey, we state that the degree of maturity of RM in the LSP sector is still relatively low. This can be seen by the low degree of using RM in general, and by the application of methods, instruments, and also IT tools.

The article "Risk Management in Logistics Enterprises: Findings from the 2013 Empirical Study" by Michael Huth and Dirk Lohre in "Transport Logistics" (No 2 (22)/2014) can be found here: http://www.logistics-and-transport.eu/index.php/main/article/view/323

-----

Seit dem Jahr 2009 führen mein Kollege Prof. Dr. Dirk Lohre von der Hochschule Heilbronn und ich empirische Befragungen in der Logistikbranche durch, um den Reifegrad des Risikomanagements (RM) in im Speditions- und Logistiksektor zu erfassen.

Unsere letzte Erhebung wurde zwar bereits im 2013 durchgeführt; die Ergebnisse wurde allerdings erst vor wenigen Wochen in der internationalen Logistikzeitschrift "Transport and Logistics" veröffentlicht.


Welche wesentlichen Ergebnisse lassen sich aus der Studie ziehen?

Figure 2: Use of RM for specific functions

1. Die aktuellen Top-Risiken für Manager im Logistiksektor sind die Wettbewerbsbedingungen in dieser Branche, personalbezogene Risiken (bspw. aufgrund des Fahrermangels) sowie operative Risiken. Die Befragten sehen diese drei Risiken auch zukünftig als die wichtigsten drei Risiken an. Daneben werden allerdings auch steigende bzw. volatile Energiepreise als Bedrohung wahrgenommen.
2. Nur etwas mehr als die Hälfte der Unternehmen, die auf den Fragebogen antworteten, nutzt bereits ein RM (siehe Figure 1). Einige der Unternehmen haben sich auf die Fahne geschrieben, innerhalb der nächsten zwei Jahre ein RM zu implementieren, aber für jedes sechste Unternehmen ist RM derzeit kein Thema.
3. Obwohl personalbezogene und operative Risiken als Top-Risiken angesehen werden, wendet nur weniger als die Hälfte der Unternehmen ihr RM kontinuierlich in diesen Bereichen an. Der Rest der Unternehmen befasst sich mit den Risiken in diesen Funktionen entweder nur von Zeit zu Zeit oder überhaupt nicht (siehe Figure 2). Im Gegensatz dazu ist die Anwendung von RM im Bereich Kostenrechnung/Controlling sowie für die Geschäftsführung deutlich höher.
4. Auf die Frage, welche Methoden oder Tools im Rahmen des RM angewandt werden, antworteten mehr als zwei Drittel der Manager, dass vor allem Brainstorming, Checklisten sowie Experten- und Mitarbeiterinterviews genutzt würden. Es ist allerdings auch bemerkenswert, dass FMEA und Risk Maps nur von 30 % und weniger der Logistikunternehmen angewandt werden. Andere methodische Ansätze werden kaum genutzt.

Als wesentliche Schlussfolgerung aus der 3. empirischen Befragung lässt sich konstatieren, dass der Reifegrad des RM in der Logistikbranche weiterhin als relativ niedrig anzusehen ist. Dies gilt sowohl auf Basis des doch recht niedrigen Anwendungsgrads insgesamt als auch für die Nutzung von Methoden, Instrumenten und IT-Anwendungen.

Informationen zum Artikel "Risk Management in Logistics Enterprises: Findings from the 2013 Empirical Study" von Michael Huth and Dirk Lohre in der Zeitschrift "Transport Logistics" (No 2 (22)/2014) sind an folgender Stelle im Internet verfügbar: http://www.logistics-and-transport.eu/index.php/main/article/view/323

Cisco's approach to SCRM/Cisco SCRM-Ansatz

In a recent article, María Jesús Sáenz of Zaragoza Logistics Center and Elena Revilla of IE Business School describe Cisco's approach of having implemented SCRM as a best practice example.

In 2005, after hurricane Katrina hit the US' Gulf Coast, Cisco had severe problems to cope with this natural disaster. Thus, supply chain service levels dropped dramatically, and led to financial losses.

To be better prepared in potential similar scenarios in the future, Cisco started a five-step process:

1. Identify strategic priorities. The priorities are different for the various product groups and mainly depend on the customers' requirement regarding cost and time/flexibility.
2. Map the vulnerabilities of the supply chain design. Thus, depending on the identified priorities, it was important to find the weak points in the SC design.
3. Integrate risk awareness into the product and the value chain. Resilience had been implemented in two ways: One the one hand it was implemented into the products, e.g. by specifying alternate components in a bill of materials. On the other hand, the supply chain design was made resilient, with a special focus on reducing the time and extend of post-disaster recovery.
4. Monitor resilience. To enable a higher transparency regarding the SC resilience, Cisco created an index, which comprises different categories (components, suppliers, manufacturing, and test equipment). The index scores are reported on a semiannuall basis.
5. Watch for events. To support fast responses to critical events, two kinds of reactive tools are used by Cisco: an incident management, and a business continuity management.

Having conducted this multistep process, Cisco was able to quickly react to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Within 12 hours, all affected SC partners were identified and the impact of the disaster onto the SC assessed. In the end, both the procedures in place and the transparency in the supply chain made it possible, that Cisco hardly suffered any revenue losses by this catastrophy. The authors conclude: "Learning to combine supply chain management and risk management within not only your company but your entire value chain will increasingly be a key factor for corporate survival in the face of a major catastrophe — whether the catastrophe is a market crash, a storm or a tsunami."

The article "Creating More Resilient Supply Chains" by María Jesús Sáenz and Elena Revilla in MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2014) can be found online here: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/creating-more-resilient-supply-chains/

-----

In einem aktuellen Artikel beschreiben María Jesús Sáenz vom Zaragoza Logistics Center und Elena Revilla von der IE Business School Ciscos Ansatz zur Implementierung eines SCRM als ein "Best Practice"-Beispiel.

In 2005, nachdem der Hurrikan Katrina die US-amerikanische Golf-Küste getroffen hatte, hatte Cisco große Probleme, mit den Auswirkungen dieser Naturkatastrophe auf das eigene Geschäft umzugehen. Der Servicegrad innerhalb der Supply Chains sank rapide ab und führte zu finanziellen Einbußen.

Um für potenzielle ähnliche Situationen in der Zukunft besser vorbereitet zu sein, startete Cisco einen fünfstufigen Prozess: 

1. Strategische Prioritäten identifizieren. Diese Prioritäten können für unterschiedliche Produktgruppen durchaus verschieden sein. Sie hängen im Wesentlichen von den Kundenanforderungen hinsichtlich Kosten und Zeit bzw. Flexibilität ab.
2. Anfälligkeit des Supply Chain Design dokumentieren. Basierend auf den identifizierten Prioritäten war es dann wichtig, die Schwachstellen innerhalb der Supply Chains auszumachen.
3. Risikobewusstsein (und Widerstandsfähigkeit) in die Wertschöpfungskette einbauen. Die Widerstandsfähigkeit wurde in zweierlei Wegen implementiert: Zum einen wurde sie in die Produkte integriert, bspw. durch die Auflistung alternativer Komponenten in den Stücklisten. Zum anderen wurde die eigentliche Supply Chain angepasst, wobei der Fokus darauf lag, Zeit und Umfang der Wiederherstellung nach einer Katastrophe zu reduzieren.
4. Widerstandsfähigkeit beobachten. Um eine höhere Transparenz über die Widerstandsfähigkeit der Supply Chain zu ermöglichen, entwickelte Cisce einen Index, in den verschiedene Kategorien einflossen (Teile und Komponenten, Lieferanten, Produktion sowie Test-Equipment). Die Indexwerte werden auf einer halbjährlichen Basis ermittelt und präsentiert.
5. Unerwünschte Ereignisse rechtzeitig erkennen. Um eine schnelle Reaktion auf kritische Ereignisse zu ermöglichen, nutzt Cisco zwei Arten von reaktiven Tools: Ein Incident-Management sowie ein Business Continuity Management.

Nachdem dieser mehrstufige Prozess durchlaufen war, war Cisco in der Lage, nach dem Erdbeben und Tsunami in Japan im Jahre 2011 schnell zu reagieren. Innerhalb von 12 Stunden waren alle betroffenen Supply-Chain-Partner identifiziert und der Einfluss des Desasters auf die Supply Chain abgeschätzt. Letztendlich hatte Cisco, sowohl durch die eingeführten Processe als auch durch die nun bestehende Transparenz kaum finanzielle Schäden zu beklagen. Die Autoren schließen daraus: "Learning to combine supply chain management and risk management within not only your company but your entire value chain will increasingly be a key factor for corporate survival in the face of a major catastrophe — whether the catastrophe is a market crash, a storm or a tsunami."

Der Artikel "Creating More Resilient Supply Chains" von María Jesús Sáenz und Elena Revilla im MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2014) ist an dieser Stelle online verfügbar: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/creating-more-resilient-supply-chains/

Supply Chain Risk Management: An unloved necessity, but also a chance/Eine ungeliebte Notwendigkeit, aber auch eine Chance

Welcome to my blog for "Supply Chain Risk Management"!

I have been involved in research and application of risk management approaches for the past 17 years, and since my very first beginning, I realized, that often supply chain risk management (SCRM) was seen as something which is necessary, but which does not contribute to a company's success. Personally, I think, this view is wrong. Moreover, I see SCRM as an approach which one hand gives company's a structure to proactively deal with risks that might occur in their supply chains. On the other hand, when looking at how suppliers and logistics service providers (LSP) are selected nowaday, the importance to have a SCRM in place might contribute to being selected as a preferred supplier or LSP. Thus, the importance of SCRM cannot be underestimated.

My blog tries to contribute to the increasing importance of SCRM. My aim is to compile information on SCRM that is relevant to you, might it be new articles or books, results of empirical surveys, tools and methods, software applications, and, and, and. If this blog is of interest for you - great! If you think, you can make it even better by contributing information - you're invited to do so! If you want to let me know your opinion - please e-mail me; you can reach me using michael.huth@w.hs-fulda.de.

And now, let's start!
Sincerely yours,
Michael Huth

-----

Willkommen zu meinem Blog zum Thema "Supply Chain Risk Management"!

Seit 17 Jahren habe ich in Forschung und Anwendung mit dem Thema Risikomanagement zu tun, und seit meinen ersten Berührungspunkten war mir klar, dass Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) oftmals als etwas angesehen wurde, was zwar notwendig sei, was aber nicht unbedingt zum Erfolg eines Unternehmens beitragen würde. Ich glaube, diese Ansicht ist falsch. Vielmehr sehe ich SCRM als einen Ansatz, der Unternehmen auf der einen Seite eine Struktur anbietet, proaktiv mit Risiken umzugehen, die in ihrer Supply Chain vorhanden sein können. Auf der anderen Seite lässt sich erkennen, dass die Auswahl von Lieferanten und Logistikdienstleistern (LDL) immer stärker auch Aspekte des Risikomanagements berücksichtigt: Um als "preferred supplier" ausgewählt zu werden, ist ein SCRM oftmals unerlässlich. Die Bedeutung von SCRM für Unternehmen sollte daher nicht unterschätzt werden.

Mein Blog versucht, im Rahmen der steigenden Bedeutung von SCRM einen Beitrag zu leisten. Mein Ziel ist es, für Sie relevante Informationen zum Thema SCRM zusammenzustellen. Dies können Informationen zu kürzlich erschienen Zeitschriftenartikeln oder Büchern sein, zu neuen Studienergebnissen, zu Instrumenten und Methoden, zu Software-Anwendungen und, und, und. Wenn dieser Blog für Sie von Interesse ist - prima! Wenn Sie der Meinung sind, ihn durch eigene Informationen noch besser machen zu können - melden Sie sich gerne! Wenn Sie mir Ihre Meinung mitteilen möchten - senden Sie mir doch einfach eine E-Mail; Sie erreichen mich unter michael.huth@w.hs-fulda.de.

Und jetzt, lassen Sie uns beginnen!
Herzliche Grüße,
Michael Huth