Supply Chain Management

The theme of this year's Gartner CIO Leadership forum that was held in March 2011 has been a great influence to write this blog. "Creative Destruction" is what they called it and you can find more details on the subject here. The theme though it reflects a negative undertone is intended to convey the requirement that CIOs need to create the future from the resources they have now. Mark P McDonald from Gartner did explain the relevance of this theme in his blog and I do agree with the opinion that the future of IT will require creative destruction to reconfigure and reimaging resources in new roles creating new sources of value.
 
Coming to the topic, it was tweaked  to make it relevant to this forum and bring out their experiences & thoughts in  re-imagining IT for Supply chain management. Recently one of our teams finished a demand sensing implementation project for a CPG global leader in food and beverages. As most of you must be aware, Demand sensing is application of algorithms to downstream data and recognize patterns in what is being sold, who is buying and which demand shaping programs are creating an impact. Demand sensing software's essentially sit on the top of demand management software's and ERP's to do this. Interestingly, over the period, you can notice that there is a clear trend in IT maturing from  transactional based systems to something more analytical & predictive. In addition, there could be other potential avenues where IT can add value as well.

Hypothetically, imagine a situation when your tube of tooth paste is about to get empty. Is it feasible that the product company who manufactures the toothpaste knows and captures this firm demand? Can they ensure that the tube gets replenished at your doorstep at the right time? 

Simplistically put, I think the answer to the above questions is a "yes" with a "but". For the smart homes that get built these days "but" for the additional costs, it may not be so difficult to have a RFID scanner, that could read a tag which is embedded in the tube, and converts the need into a purchase order, sends an sms or an e-mail  to get an acknowledgement, and on acceptance places an order with the maufacturer. The manufacturer co-ordinates with the nearest retailer and ensures delivery to your house, swipes your debit card on a wireless card reader and gets a payment.
 
While the above solution may be a little imaginative for now, if made available, the solution holds good for most of the daily used branded products - groceries, apparel, soaps and detergents, cosmetics etc. This could also probably evolve as one more channel in the era of multi channel commerce.

So while this seems to be one way of making life a little simpler or easier for the consumer how does this help the Supply Chain of the product Company?

As defined in SCOR, Let us look at a couple of parameters that affect the performance of a supply chain.

1) Perfect Order Fulfillment is measured as a metric of Reliability and is measured and defined as the percentage of orders meeting delivery performance with complete and accurate documentation and no delivery damage.
 
2) The order fulfillment cycle time is another metric for measuring the Responsiveness of the Supply chain. It is measured and captured from the moment a customer places the order to the moment the order is fulfilled is considered to be a 'gross' cycle time. It represents all the time passed between these two events, regardless of whether this represented cycle time for the activities performed by the organization to fulfill the order (both value-add and non-value-add) or dwell time.

In the above example,  since the documentation is more or less automated and the entry is essentially triggered at the consumer's end, the chances of errors in the associated documentation is limited leading to an improvement of the perfect order fulfillment metric. Secondly the chances of improving the Order fulfillment cycle time is higher as the dwell time (time at which the product sits in the retail stores before getting consumed) can be decreased. Both these measures together will surely have a positive impact on the Supply Chain performance of the product manufacturer.

Besides the improvement in the Supply Chain performance, I think another interesting aspect in the above example is, it moves the demand capture from the traditional point of sales to the point of consumption which if implemented well could bring in interesting turn of events in the area of demand forecasting and demand sensing. Am sure new technologies such as cloud based services, social media and virtualization all can add value to similar solutions as well as help in terms of bringing down the cost.
 
It would be interesting to know your thoughts and experiences on similar areas. Look forward to read your comments.

Posted by Srinivas Ambatipudi at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just imagine that you want to relocate with your family to another country for 2 years for company's work. It is but obvious that you would want to carry the maximum luggage with you without paying hefty fine for the excessive baggage at the airport. As a part of logical thought process, you would first consider the various constraints imposed by the airlines (weight, volume, number of luggage/ hand baggage, etc.) and then you would start to pack the stuff. Won't you agree with me that the most important step is  placing different items inside the bags - like which items should be at the bottom (ideally sturdy ones),which items should be alongside of the bag, which items should be in the hand baggage (fragile ones), et al. Applying similar other parameters after 1^st round of packing you would weigh the bags, re-shuffle the items 4-5 times in various bags and would spend almost 3 hours in this process till the objective of maximum luggage within the specified weight constraints is met. How nice it would be, if any software program can provide an end-to-end solution to you - i.e. right from considering the constraint to the layout of the products to be placed in the bags?

In today's era of fierce market competition and high fuel cost, companies are also looking for such a solution to facilitate the load building process to great extent. Every supply chain planning product possesses the basic capability of producing distribution requirement planning (DRP) or deployment planning output by considering the constraints (Number of cases, Weight, Volume, etc.). However at the execution level, there are real challenges for the vehicle loaders in the dock in the process of placing the product inside the truck. When certain products are fragile, the complexity increases further. This is one of the major needs of every organization which has not been fully met by today's best-of-breed supply chain products or even by SAP APO/Oracle APS.  

Some of the niche players like TWO (Transportation and Warehouse Optimization) grabbed this opportunity with both the hands and helped many Fortune 100 companies (including CPG industry leaders like Nestle, P&G, Kraft) to reduce the transportation cost by 4-8%. The load building product (AutoVLB) developed by TWO, rightly termed as "SuperTruck", has been made so smart that it also considers the weight restrictions on the axles of the truck (to conform to the Federal Bridge Gross Weight Rule in US to prevent heavy vehicles from damaging roads and bridges) and distributes the load accordingly inside the truck. This unique feature of the product makes sure that trucks are not held up at the weigh scales. With the help of AutoPalletP3 (optimized mixed product case picking) and AutoLoaderT3 (optimized load building), AutoVLB can create a loading diagram and a case pick sequence for every shipment as well, which is one of the striking benefit of the solution.

To cut down on transportation cost, companies are relentlessly striving to attain the "true truckload optimization". So there is definitely a huge and growing need of an end-to-end load building solution in the market. Now, the question still remains - will it be possible for the market leading or best-of-breed supply chain packages to cater to this requirement or this area would always be dominated by niche players?

Posted by Umesh Sonawane at 4:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to work on an order management solution implementation for a grocery (food) retailer. I realized that the order management /fulfillment process for food presents its own set of opportunities and challenges to the retailer when compared to the same process for non-food products. I will highlight some of the differences in the processes for food and non-food products below.

A grocery order typically has a large number of order lines (items) when compared to an order for non-food items. (The average order value may not be comparable though!). Since the typical homemaker tends to buy the same product/brand month after month after month, retailers attempt to attract/retain them by simplifying the experience of placing the order. This is done by offering functionality on the website/customer service application to retrieve and modify previously placed orders to reduce the order creation time and providing the ability to save (in a  technically secure manner) the customer's payment details for future use.

In case of food products, the delivery method preferred by a grocery shopper is one that offers her the flexibility to choose a date/time slot of her convenience at which the order is to be delivered. While this is convenient from the customers' perspective, it presents the retailer a few challenges:
1. Building the infrastructure (warehouses, depots, stores) to deliver 'fresh' produce and other food products to the entire delivery area.
2. Building the transportation processes and capability (either in-house or by contracting with a carrier) to be able to deliver at chosen slots
3. Providing an easy-to-use interface during order creation for the customer to be able to select the slot of her choice
The opportunity here for retailers is that the infrastructure built can be used to not only deliver food products, but can also be leveraged to deliver non-food products ordered by the same customer. The other opportunity here is for the retailer to charge a premium for the most preferred delivery slots. For example, the 7-9am delivery slot in the morning may have a shipping charge of $15 while a slot between 1-3 pm on the afternoon may be priced at $10.

I will discuss a few more differences in my next post. In the meantime, do let me know if you have any comments.

Posted by Amit Ambekar at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This is continuation to my previous blog. In this blog we can see Reverse logistics and Packaging in detail, which can give quick results to the green vision.

What have you done after finishing Pepsi, Coke or Dominos? Yes, tossed the can/bottle/box into litter-box. You do not need it once the contents are over. At the same time you cannot have drink alone without can or bottle, or Pizza delivered without a box.

There are certain functions you expect the packaging to meet - like protecting products for distribution, storage, sale, and use. It is never intended to end in landfill or to be a burden to nature.The bottle you dump in Recycle bin or giving back to the shopkeeper goes back to the manufacturer via reverse logistics. This saves a lot for manufacturer and plays its role in greening the supply-chain.

Pepsi has already started installing Reverse vending machines called - "Dream machines" where individuals can recycle their cans and bottles and earn reward points. With only 34 percent of non-alcoholic bottles and 25 percent of PET plastic bottles recycled annually, Pepsi aims to boost that number to 50 percent through increased recycling at reverse vending.
The Coca-Cola Company made a hit when it announced a new "plastic" soda bottle that is made 30%, in part, from sugar cane and molasses-based materials , and which is 100% recyclable. Dubbed the "PlantBottle," Coke will use the new material in a variety of package sizes for its drinks, mainly for its Dasani water brand.

Why manufacturers re-cycle or re-use the packaging? Greening is not the only motivation, this reduces the packaging cost considerably for them.The % of recycled component in bottles and cans is already a KPI for the beverage manufacturers.

Consider cement transportation- Dry cement powder is packed in paper bags of 50 kilo-grams each. However even for a small construction you need lots of such packs. Then why are they packing it in 50 kgs packs? Why can't it be packed in bigger packs or rather deliver on the spot without packing?
Popular answer is that there are problems for storing it. Again, Why do you want to store it, when all you want is Just in time? Looking from this angle smaller packs are driven by convenience to store factor, and inability to meet Just In Time requests. There is a scope for greening via just in time, package-less delivery of goods.
 
Let's see what's happening in paint industry. Whenever paint is poured into a container,  around 5% of it will stick to the walls of container . This is generally referred as skin losses. This loss pinches the industry not by the amount of paint lost, but by the cost involved in safely disposing the "paint skins". It has gone to a level that many times the safe disposal cost of paint skin with heavy metals is much more than the gains from it. This resulted in the classical Economical Order Quantity (EOQ) formula itself tweaked to accommodate cost of disposal in the cost side.

Automobile paint shops also faced this problem, initially the containers and skins were send back from plant to the paint supplier via effective reverse logistics, who can reuse or effectively dispose the skins utilizing the economies of scale. Later the car manufacturers found it more sensible to outsource entire paint shop to the paint company. The Skin losses and environmental costs  which were part of automobile paint shops a decade back got totally eliminated by outsourcing the entire paint shop to the paint manufacturer. The automobile manufacturers can concentrate more on their core competencies, leaving paint management to experts . This not only saved the disposing head-aches, but also the inventory worries - greening the supply chain along with other merits.
 
There is a big scope for greening the supply-chains from a packaging perspective - the hierarchy is Prevent > Minimize > Reuse > Recycle > Dispose.

Two main enablers for achieving this are
1) Just in time delivery (Minimize packaging ) and
2) Reverse logistics for packaging materials (Reuse and Recycle)

More and more KPIs are emerging day by day  to track the reverse logistics and to measure the recycle effectiveness of reverse logistics . Also now manufacturers started capturing the packaging cost separately and higher managements are looking these as increased opportunities to reduce costs.

Overall the perception about packaging  is changing from cost sinks to opportunities.

I would like to hear your thoughts and views on these.

Posted by Majush K Philip at 5:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Other day, I wanted to have some specific information on a certain market segment. Tried various sources and finally stumbled upon a link to a leading analyst's report on the topic- only to be put off by its astronomical cost. While I badly wanted that information, at the same time did not think it is worth that kind of money they are charging. More so since the actual information that I am seeking is only a small portion of the report. I am sure there are many more who share my perspective. This made me wonder how many customers would be prepared to part with such a huge amount for these reports. Are these reports priced at the right levels? Do these analysts who churn out reports on marketing / pricing strategies for other companies, themselves need a lecture of pricing and packaging their own product?

There was a time- some years back-when we used to have too little sources of such information. Those days these analyst firms were the only place you could go to get reliable answers. Now we have too many information sources and these reports is just one of them- that too which are voluminous ones containing 90% stuff which we don't need at the given point in time. Why should I pay for all of that in these times of blogging and micro-blogging? Can't they change their business model to customized solutions for specific context? Instead on bringing out huge, bulky reports in a templatized manner? 

Who is the customer for these reports? Let's specifically focus on IT world.  As I had mentioned in one of my previous blogs, the real decision makers are now the business or end-users. IT department's role is that of enabler.  Do they really care for or for that matter; even understand the numbers these reports are churning out? Can they relate to heavy terms like "value constellation", "value stream analysis" etc.? I am also seeing problem with analyst report being "sponsored" by product vendors- what happens to the neutrality? Isn't it that consultants like me selectively quote from analyst reports if it suits us.

Recently I came across this interesting blog by Phil Fersht. Will the industry analyst business be dead in five years? Pretty much echoing my thoughts on this. To quote him in verbatim...".Buyers don't read research these days.  Fact. I can tell you from years of experience that buyers will only read a research report if their job depended on it and it's forced down their throats. However, buyers love learning things that help them do their job better - they like listening to real experts and learning from each other.  Analysts need to spend as much time as they can talking with buyers and becoming a focal point for idea-sharing, knowledge, data and validation of their strategies.  While some analyst firms know this, many of their analysts rarely have more than two or three buyers in their Rolodex..."

To sum it up- its high time analyst take note of the current market realities and customer preferences and repackage their offerings. They need to focus more on delivering value-added, customized solutions to the customers which would help them do their job better. That's the only way they can justify their big price tag.

Posted by C. N. Sajit Kumar at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The emerging trend a few years ago was the adoption of lean warehousing principles in organizations. In most cases, these initiatives were rolled out as pilots. So far, their success and adoption have been mixed. In this blog, I will focus on a key - yet often missed - element critical to the success of lean warehousing, viz. the alignment between operations and systems.

Lean warehousing refers to the application of 'lean' principles to warehousing and logistics operations. These principles are derived from lean manufacturing that calls for the identification and elimination of waste (waste is defined as any activity that does not add value). Lean warehousing is a process of continuous improvement involving a constant review of warehouse operations (from ASN creation through product shipment), removal of activities that do not add value, and the enhancement/addition of processes that create value. Since the best feedback comes from those who use them, every warehouse operator is encouraged and empowered to constantly think of better ways of working. Improvement techniques like the 5s framework (sort, set in order, shine, standardize and sustain) are applied.

If lean has much benefit, why is its adoption limited? The reasons are many; but one of them is the dissonance between continuous operational improvements and software development cycles.

Let me give you an example. Imagine that you are employed as a Receiver in the warehouse. Your job is to stack the incoming cases on a pallet for putaway. Your WMS has been configured to recommend 20 cases to be stacked per pallet. However, you begin to notice that your organization is asking its vendors to sometimes send the same item in smaller case dimensions, thereby allowing you to stack 30 cases per pallet and override the system suggestion. In other words, the number of cases that can be stacked on a pallet is a function of the case type and not a function of the item number. Unfortunately, your system has not been designed to recommend the quantity by case type.

Since the system was likely developed based on certain assumptions that have now evolved, you request your IT team to modify the WMS. IT places your requirement on a wish list. Since your organization follows the traditional waterfall model of software development, this list is evaluated every 3-6 months. Assuming that your request is rated important (a very big if), it will be designed, coded, tested and deployed alongside other requirements. If you are extremely lucky, your changes will hit the system within 6 months. In most cases, it takes a year.

And therein lies the disconnect. You want to empower your associates to constantly think of improvements, but the desired software changes come through only after a year. You want your warehouse operations to be lean, but your software operations are not.

I believe that the successful adoption of lean warehousing will only materialize when lean thinking also permeates systems design and development. The waterfall model has its utility in certain situations, but if you are talking continuous improvement and incremental change, the agile method is better suited. An organization needs to invest significant time and effort to the adoption of agile practices, and if it works with IT partners and third party integrators, their practices must be aligned as well.

I do want to highlight that the frequency of incremental change does not matter. I have come across one client who prefers changes every 2 months while another wants them every 2 weeks. A recent engagement revealed an agile software development process where there are no 50 page functional specifications or multiple approval cycles. Instead, rapid incrementalism is the mantra. Business & IT work closely with each other. Design through deployment (including documentation and user testing) conclude within 4 weeks. And these take place even with an offshoring element in the mix.

When you create an environment where employees think, suggest improvements and make changes, and their work is supported by flexible software tools that support these changes, you get a lot more than just lean warehouses. You get motivated employees and happier customers. Now wouldn't we all want more of that?

Posted by Arun Kumar at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In my earlier blog, I had highlighted the following challenges most of the Supply chain professionals face across multiple dimensions from a Customer Service perspective:
1. The drive towards Globalization has resulted in the focus to not only look at the developing markets for cheap supply, but also to tap these developing markets to drive future growth. These newer markets do add to the overall growth of the organization, but also pose newer challenges in meeting the customer demand satisfactorily
2. Increasingly demanding customers with information at finger tips and lower brand loyalty
3. Increased channels to service the customers with varying degrees of Customer Service expectations
4. Intense competitive activity driving lower prices and reduced scope for differentiation
5. Increased pace of product innovation - rapid new product introductions combined with rapidly reducing product life cycles.

All these factors contribute to the overall Demand Volatility in the Supply Chains while confronting with the reality on the Upstream:
1. Increasing lead times with most of the manufacturing bases of suppliers outsourced or offshore
2. The Escalating costs of fuel drive these supply chains to employ slower and economical modes of transport like by water rather than by air. This not only adds to the overall lead times but also the overall lead time variability of the Upstream partners

We see the following competing forces in action that need to be addressed well:

 

We have traditionally employed Inventory as a buffer against these competing forces. The Inventory, while helping in decoupling the subsequent stage from the activities in the preceding stage, also does result in various types of costs and thus are generally the sour point for most of the Finance executives.

There are many articles and blogs that weigh the benefits against the costs associated with carrying Inventory. The focus of my blog is however with one peculiar aspect of the challenge mentioned above - the increased number of stages or echelons in an end-to-end Supply Chain exacerbating the potential downside impacts of carrying Inventory. We further narrow down our focus on the Safety Stocks that are required to cover the variability / uncertainty related to the Customer Demand and the Supplier Lead Times. The more the number of echelons and the more the number of stocking points, the larger would the total Safety Stock in the Supply Chain. This is a key point to keep in mind that we can no longer plan for inventory to be available in every node in the Supply chain.

We do see the use of Weeks of Supply as a way to setup Safety Stock at every node in the Supply Chain, though this approach is a sure-fire way for disaster as the inventory lying in the network faces two significant costs - the Opportunity Cost and the Obsolescence Cost. If we were to employ the concept of Risk Pooling and have the Safety Stock maintained in one single location, the total Supply Chain Safety Stock would be reduced by a factor of the Square Root of the number of nodes. From a Safety Stock perspective, again the idea is that this Stock must be determined to cover the Lead-time variability from all the upstream stages and the Demand variability from all the downstream stages. This approach when used to meet a specified target service level is an improvement over the static weeks of supply-based target for the Safety Stock. This capability is available as part of most Advanced Planning Solutions available in the market, one of them being SAP SCM.

The above-mentioned approach has ample room for improvement by deploying the Inventory Optimization models to determine the Inventory levels across multiple echelons of the Supply Chains. The Inventory Optimization functionality is generally available as an add-on tool that complements very well and feeds into the Replenishment planning modules within the Advanced Planning Systems [for e.g. SmartOps which provides multi-echelon Inventory Optimization has very tight integration with SAP APO].

I would like to not conclude whether Inventory is indeed a necessary evil yet, but would like to end this blog with the following interesting analogy made by Mr. Larry Lapide about Inventory in his article in SCMR:
"I wrote an article where I used the analogy that inventory is like cholesterol. Both have two components to them: good and bad. So like cholesterol, you want to keep your total inventories as low as possible, but you don't want the good component to get too low."

Posted by Sandeep Deolekar at 5:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Non-perishable segment is one of the most dynamic and competitive segments of the retail industry. Even in the current challenging economic environment retailers continue to strengthen their customer propositions by investing in multi-channel initiatives, expanding choice, developing both ranges and services, enhancing product presentation in stores and online and delivering value to the customer. These initiatives have objectives of building successful businesses that bring unrivalled convenience and value to customers' everyday lives, whether shopping at home or on the move, and, for IT, reducing the number of applications by a factor of 3 or 4. Fragmented custom build systems are becoming barriers to the growth. The limitations of such systems are driving retailers to search for a streamlined, end to end order management solution that will play a pivotal role in transforming their business.

The benefits of an Order Management system are numerous, including increased sales and market share; reduced order processing costs; increased visibility of your customers' buying behavior; quicker execution of pricing and promotion strategies to specific target market segments and so on.
Retailers are deciding to replace their existing OMS for a variety of reasons. The cost of replacing existing OMS is quiet high. Hence, it is important to decide the time of changing existing OMS. At the most elemental level, the question is whether your current system strengthens your ability to execute business strategies that will help you build competitive advantage, respond to constant change, and grow your business. If the answer to this question is negative, then you need to replace existing OMS sooner than later. In this blog I am listing down five signs of an obsolete order management system.

1. Your OMS offers limited functions
Does your OMS allow your business to pursue continuous improvement initiatives? This often involves the addition of related functions such as fraud management, broken promise management, customer correspondence, return and exchange management. These types of add-on functionality help to improve customer satisfaction. You rely on your OMS vendor to closely monitor the market and its customer base as part of its product development process. Many smaller product vendors lack a defined road map for improving and expanding product functionality. Your OMS vendor may not have upgrade plans due to lack of domain expertise, funding or other problems. If so, you may be trapped with a functionally stagnant system while market requirements continue to evolve around you.
You should also consider your use of functional workarounds. If you are creating workarounds for new business requirements that the system cannot support you should consider replacing it. The more processes you handle outside OMS, the more difficult it will be to track them and maintain the accuracy of the data.

2. Supporting your current OMS is becoming expensive
If you have bespoke in-house built OMS, expertise of the application is limited to in-house staff that may leave the company, taking with them irreplaceable technical know-how. The cost of retaining such employees could be exorbitant. Losing key employees who possess all the knowledge required to operate your system can be a big setbacks to your business.
Delay in upgrading your OMS may force you to maintain older versions of related infrastructure such as databases, operating systems and other software. In some cases, support for older infrastructure is transferred from the original provider to a third-party vendor, who can then charge a premium to support organizations that elect to maintain older software and infrastructure components. This is could consume a large chunk of IT budget and hurt your ability to add new functionality or modules. Finally, running on an outdated OMS decreases the level and quality of support you receive from your vendors.

3. External factors are making your current OMS obsolete.
Ever rising external requirements and compliance issues affecting your business may have become too forceful for you to ignore. This is especially true if your business is undergoing changes due to increased globalization of your supplier network and customer base. Many in-house and legacy OMS may be prove incompetent when faced with unforeseen mandates. Larger suppliers and government agencies may impose regulations (like PCI compliance) that require technology your OMS cannot support. If you are unable to comply, you may be subjected to significant penalty fees, raising your supply chain costs. If OMS does not allow you to observe the latest industry policies, you may be compelled to replace your business systems.

4. Rigid OMS is stopping you to respond to change
A Key weakness of many legacy OMS is the tendency toward rigid enforcement of predefined business processes. This does not allow your business to implement the unique processes that are likely a source of competitive differentiation. Your OMS should have a more modular approach and architecture that supports an evolutionary process in line with your business practices.
A lot of existing OMS have some shortcomings which can only be overcome by the addition of inflexible custom coding which doesn't carry forward with an upgrade. This custom code may have been added during the original system implementation to bridge the gap between the standard product and your company's particular needs. In some situations, it reaches an extreme where so many changes have been made that even minor modifications become a major task; thus paralyzing the system's ability to be altered at all. For retailer this could mean a never-ending process resulting in loss of competitive advantage and irreparable damage to key customer relationships.

5. The UI in your current OMS is difficult to use and responds slowly
Bespoke legacy OMS sometimes have outdated user interfaces and menu structures which make it difficult and time-consuming to complete tasks and access data. User-friendly design benefits both the company and the end user. Increased usability of the OMS increases productivity and job satisfaction while decreasing customer support needs.
Another key indicator may be a slowdown in response times of existing user interface. Do you find yourself sitting around waiting for a "hanging" system, especially when call center representative is in call with customer? Slow systems can lead to considerable declines in productivity, efficiency, and order processing time.
Continuing with obsolete order management systems can be a huge burden. This is because your customers are not going to slow down to accommodate your outdated systems. Customers will continue to demand better products, more visibility, and faster delivery.

Posted by Pankaj Sudhakar Patil at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)