A simple idea

I recently read yet another manifesto that claimed to have found a simple way of mathematically organizing the supply chain to achieve the holy grail of high turns, exponential sales growth and lean inventory. On paper, this stuff always looks promising, but it’s like a diet fad – not terribly long after you implement the system, you’re searching for the new algorithm that will take you to the promised land. And yet, I’m one of those people who design those systems. Why is what we’re doing so elusive?

Maybe the objective – to organize the supply chain along a serialized set of transactions informed by mathematical projections – contains the seed of its own failure. The supply world is organic and unpredictable. Engineers see this as the challenge: let’s impose order and predictability! This works, to a degree – defined by the constraints you imposed when you fit the messy world into a statistical model. And then you become frustrated by the limitations you imposed.

I’m thinking now that a social model is more informative than a mechanical model. At a real basic level, we’re talking about people, not systems. People buy stuff – even when they follow departmental guidelines, they’re people: emotional, intuitive, cognitive, yet likely to make mistakes. In the supply world, there are individuals and groups of people interacting sometimes physically, sometimes virtually. All of these people are following some idea of a process – whether a customer or a truck driver or a production line supervisor – while they act in a personal and very individual way. Attempting to mechanize their actions and decisions is futile. Success for any of them is simply that the outcome of what they did was good: the customer found what she was looking for (at an acceptable price); the driver arrives on time without mishap; the supervisor’s line production and employee morale are high. So how can all of them be more successful?

You don’t have to over-think this one. We’re social animals. We naturally create organizing principles for living with each other. We communicate, tell stories, teach, learn, entertain. We share (sometimes) and take (sometimes). We create ideas about what we experience, and then change those ideas when experience changes our thinking. We make tools. When the tools break, we make new ones – and you have to count on the tool breaking; it will.

So how do I …… (forecast demand… plan resources….manage an assortment.. fill in your own need…)? Let’s not over-think it, or try to find the one super concept that will solve the problem for everyone, forever. Before we make a tool, let’s use those social attributes (communicate, tell stories, teach, learn, entertain) and tap into the combined experience of the people in our social group. When we make the tool, we’ll accept that it’s just one way of solving the problem. We also have to accept that not everyone in the group will be able to use the tool expertly every time, so the tool’s design has to cater for that. Then, be prepared to keep making it anew.

I think it’s that simple. And that complex.