Mastering the intricacies of supply Chain

 https://blogs.gartner.com/beyond-supply-chain-blog/supply-chain-strategy-lessons-best/

Mind mapping

The Mind Mapping technique was created to be an effective way to produce ideas by association. It transforms a huge list of dull or tedious information into a highly organized, colorful and memorable pictorial representation that is in agreement with the brain’s normal manner of doing things. With respect to creative problem solving, mind maps help to show how different pieces of information or different ideas are connected.

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

© Wikimedia Commons | http://mindmapping.bg

From this article, you’ll learn 1) definition of mind mapping, 2) how did this ideation technique originate? 3) essential features of a mind map, 4) how to build your own mind map, 5)applications of mind maps, 6) advantages of using mind maps, and 7) short note on mind mapping tools.

DEFINITION OF MIND MAPPING

A mind map is a graphical representation utilized to visually organize information. The process of mind mapping involves penning a central theme and coming up with new and associated ideas that branch out from the central idea. The central single idea is frequently in the format of an image drawn in the middle of a blank landscape page to which connected representations of ideas such as words, images, facts, figures, concepts or parts of words are added as they are thought up. Mind mapping utilizes the concept of “radiant thinking.” This means thoughts radiate (branch out) in different directions from a single idea. The branches may move forwards and backwards to and from the main (central) idea. This is in contrast to “linear thinking” which is a thought process following a step-by-step flow or known cycles where it is necessary to get the response to one step before moving to the next step.

As is the case with other mapping techniques, the objective of mind mapping is to concentrate attention and to acquire and frame knowledge to enable the sharing of concepts and ideas.

HOW DID THIS IDEATION TECHNIQUE ORIGINATE?

Tony Buzan is the name frequently used in connection with mind mapping. It is true that he popularized the term “mind map.” However, the utilization of diagrams that graphically “map” information using radial maps and branching, dates back centuries. Similar strategies were utilized in the 3rd century by Porphyry of Tyros to conceptualize Aristotle’s ideas.

The semantic network was created in the late 1950s as a hypothesis to comprehend human learning that was further revised by M. Ross Quillian and Allan M. Collins at some point in the early 1960s. The radial structure of mind maps is similar to that of concept maps, created in the 1970s by learning specialists. However, the difference is that the former are made easier by concentrating around a central, single key concept.

Tony Buzan’s argument is that ‘traditional’ outlines call for the reader to scan information in a left to right, top to bottom manner that is in contrast to the brain’s natural propensity to scan the whole page in a non-linear manner. Buzan additionally utilizes widespread suppositions pertaining to the cerebral hemispheres so as to encourage the exclusive utilization of mind mapping in preference to other kinds of note making.

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A MIND MAP

Given below are five key characteristics of a mind map:

• There is a single key idea, focus, subject or concept graphically represented in the form of a central image.
• The key themes associated with the idea, focus, subject or concept radiate from the central picture as branches.
• Each branch carries a key word or image printed or drawn on the associated line.
• Other branches, shown as twigs are connected to the main branches. The twigs represent concepts of lesser importance.
• The branches create a linked nodal structure.

HOW TO BUILD YOUR OWN MIND MAP

If you are using a mind map to get employees in your business to come up with ideas/solutions, you may give them instructions as follows:

Prerequisite: Keep blank paper and colored pens ready. If A4 paper seems inadequate, you can consider A3 paper.

Step 1: Start with the topic

Put the topic, central concept or idea in image form, in the center of an empty page. Space on the page should be used wisely and yet freely so that the brain doesn’t feel unbridled, and there is space to occupy more and more ideas as they come. Beginning in the center provides the brain with freedom to move in all directions and reveal ideas/solutions more naturally and freely. It may be more convenient to position the page in landscape orientation because that makes drawing easier.

Step 2: Define the structure

Create the fundamental structure with which you would be organizing your ideas. The structure would include branches radiating out from the central idea and drawn as thick lines. These main branches are termed as Basic Organizing Ideas (BOIs).

Step 3: Define each branch

Put down a key image or word for each branch as your ideas come. Allow the ideas to flow freely and quickly (long pauses are not to be encouraged) without judgment on whether they are practical or crazy. Also no need to bother about aesthetics. Draw freely and unconcernedly.

Step 4: Highlight the priorities

The concepts of lesser importance can be represented as the twigs and drawn as thinner lines.

Step 5: Extend your mind map by additional ideas

As information and ideas keep coming, connect them to the mind map in a suitable manner.

Step 6: Review and revise

After the first attempt, allow your mind to settle. Once it has, you may want to revisit what you did. Review it and revise and/or reorder it. Sometimes, a different sheet of paper may be required for this.

How about two mind maps?

Another way to mind map and this is for problem-solving, is to create two different mind maps, one each for the problem and solutions. For the problem mind map, the problem would be the main idea represented in the center with causes and aspects of the problem connected by branches. Sub-branches can be used to examine the problem in more detail. For the solution mind map, the solution would be the key idea represented in the center. By way of the main branches, one can provide the routes that would help to solve the problem. One can incorporate organizations, colleagues, resources or techniques that would be of assistance and associated with those routes. Sub-branches can be added as one venture into the details.

Drawing two mind maps makes one realize that a single obstacle could have multiple potential solutions. It is up to the person drawing the mind map and others concerned to find that solution(s) which is most practical, cost-effective and/or time-saving. A final branch may be developed with the selected solution or blend of solutions, with the sub-branches connecting to and from the details of intended method(s) of implementation.

A properly done mind map is very easy to review as it is possible to frequently refresh information mentally just by a cursory glance. The mind map would depict the “shape” of the topic, the comparative significance of individual branches/twigs, and the manner in which facts are connected to one another. Remembering the structure and shape of the mind map can provide cues that would help to recollect the information within the map.

Suggestions/Tips/Techniques

• Use colors for the whole project. Colors give the mind map extra vitality and arouse the brain’s creative and visual faculties.
• Stick to single words or brief meaningful phrases for key words. Too many words would only cause cluttering.
• Similar information, if any, can be clustered together.
• Capital letters are to be preferred to small caps.
• It would be a good idea to make the branches curved instead of straight. Only straight lines in the map may come across as boring to the brain.
• Use as many images as possible. Besides being easy to remember, a picture is worth a thousand words.
• Use arrows to show connections between ideas.
• If the person wishes and if required, he can annotate the mind map. An example would be providing references to other sources, making them identifiable by writing them down in a different color of pen.
• One should feel free to adopt a personal style as this would boost the creative fire.
• Information in one section of the mind map may have some connection to another section. If this is the case, the person can draw lines to depict the cross-linkages. This would assist with comprehending how one aspect of the subject impacts another. It is also acceptable to use other visuals such as callouts or speech bubbles to depict the link to the key/central idea or theme.
• The person should stay calm throughout the mind mapping process. This suggestion may not be suitable for an office environment but is good for mind mapping at home. To do so, the person should distance himself from the topic to work on, by taking brief breaks and then coming back to it clearheaded and fresh. A short walk could help. By providing the brain with rest, one will find that it becomes more forthcoming with ideas.

APPLICATIONS OF MIND MAPS

As is the case with other diagramming tools, this idea generation technique may be utilized to generalize, structure, visualize and classify ideas. It also helps with triggering creativity and creative solutions, organizing information, making decisions and solving problems. Mind mapping is also used for brainstorming. Here, ideas are introduced into the map in a radial manner surrounding the central node, bereft of the implicit prioritization associated with sequential or hierarchy arrangements, and in which grouping and organizing is kept for later stages.

Data collected from mind maps may be utilized to enhance various other applications, examples being search engines and specialist search systems. To achieve this, the mind map may be examined with traditional techniques of information recovery to classify the author of the mind map or documents that are connected from inside the mind map.

Other applications include:

• Making notes, whether for presentations or essays, from lectures or from secondary sources such as books;
• Studying and remembering information (it has been propounded that mind mapping can enhance study/learning effectiveness by 15 percent more than traditional note-taking;
• Displaying information in a layout that depicts the structure of a subject taken as a whole;
• Simplifying a complicated idea;
• As a mnemonic;
• To team up in sessions of color pen creativity.

ADVANTAGES OF USING MIND MAPS

Mind maps help the user utilize the complete power of the brain, both the left which is more associated with logical and analytical thinking, and the right which is utilized for day dreaming, spatial awareness, color, imagination and a feeling of wholeness. This idea generation technique has several advantages including that it:

• Spurs one on to view the bigger picture;
• Requires less time to develop;
• Consumes less space than notes that are chronologically arranged;
• Allows large topics or projects to be broken down into manageable chunks and this broken-down form, therefore, facilitates effective planning and minimizes chances of forgetting key points and being overwhelmed;
• Increases concentration;
• Helps trigger more associations and ideas by applying radial thinking;
• Provides pleasure to the eyes (once completed, the mind map appears like a mini work of art to those who behold it).

SHORT NOTE ON MIND MAPPING TOOLS

Though in many cases, it is suitable to draw mind maps using the hand, software applications and tools can broaden the scope of mind-mapping by permitting those engaged in the process to map more than ideas and thoughts using information on the internet and computers, such as documents, spreadsheets, images and internet sites. A few of these tools are discussed below:

• iMindMap: This concept mapping software utilizes Tony Buzan’s trademark mind mapping techniques to develop maps for project management, brainstorming, creative thinking, organizing, and planning and delivery of presentations. ThinkBuzan developed the desktop application. The tool runs on Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows. iMindMap has focus applications, examples of which are Expand and Collapse Branches and Focus In and Out which can assist with moving around the problem and making the mind concentrate.
• Coggle: This is a freeware web application for mind mapping. Some of its prominent features are real-time collaboration, markdown text formatting, iOS support, sharing with individuals, organizations or through a private link, and LaTeX math support utilizing MathJax. Auto-save and revision features mean it is possible to view how the mind map looked prior to someone who was invited beginning to work with it. The software enables creation of linear and organic mind maps utilizing a keyboard, mouse, tablet computer or interactive keyboard.
• XMind: Created by XMind Lt.d, XMind software helps with both mind mapping and brainstorming. Apart from the management elements, the tool can clarify thinking, capture ideas, promote team collaboration and handle complicated information for greater productivity. In addition to mind maps, it supports spread sheets, fishbone diagrams, organization charts and tree diagrams.

Mind maps are currently utilized by many millions of people across the globe. It appears that this idea generation technique will increase in popularity and continue to be used for many, many years to come.

Credit : http://www.infiniteminds.info/Problem-Solving-and-Creativity/How-to-use-Mind-Maps.html
             http://www.cleverism.com/techniques-idea-generation-mind-maps

Mis-Adventures in Supply Chain Management

Mis-Adventures in Supply Chain Management

Before Galileo’s death nearly 400 years ago,Conventional Wisdom held that the earth - and not the sun - was the center of the universe.

More recently, Conventional Wisdom held that smoking, drinking, stress, and diet caused peptic ulcers.

Then, two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall, showed that bacteria caused ulcers.

Meanwhile, The Wisdom of Crowds, a book by James Surowiecki, contends that the collective conclusions by groups of individuals are often better than those made by any single member of the group.

Well, maybe; maybe not. Remember that Galileo’s belief that the sun was the center of the universe was ultimately proved correct. Maybe conventional wisdom isn’t always right.

The same can be said of supply chain management. Since it was first introduced in 1982, supply chain management has experienced a series of transformations. Initially seen as a better way of reducing costs and leveraging resources, it has gone from being a function (purchasing, for example) to being a cross-functional, strategic capability.

More importantly, it is now transforming from an art - something that is learned only through trial, error, and experience - to a science. A hallmark of science is the continuous testing of commonly held beliefs.

These beliefs often take the form of conventional wisdom - or CW - a body of ideas generally accepted as the truth by people or experts in a given field. Indeed, conventional wisdom can be anchored in truth, but these ideas often reflect an incomplete or incorrect understanding.

In examining these examples of conventional wisdom, we not only dispel those that are myths, but we also develop a better understanding of what is taking place - an understanding that often leads to improvements and sometimes even breakthrough discoveries.

In this article, we examine six issues:

1. Negative Working Capital
2. Economic Order Quantities (EOQs)
3. Safety Stock
4. Performance Measurement
5. Standards
6. Change Management

For each, we present the conventional wisdom, identify the rationale, and then we put it to the test and ask the question: Is it truth or myth? The results will surprise you.

1. Conventional Wisdom: Negative working capital is good because your suppliers fund your needs and growth
Negative working capital occurs when a firm’s current liabilities exceed its current assets. Traditionally viewed as an indicator of an unhealthy financial state, some firms have figured out that, if managed currently, negative capital can be healthy and good for the firm.

This occurs when the firm funds its operations by paying its suppliers slowly (say net 90 days or net 160 days), while getting payment from its customers relatively quick­ly. For some financial writers such a practice is attractive. By getting paid as quickly as possible, and by taking a little longer than average in paying vendors, these companies are seen as being more adept at raising cash. Their customers and suppliers are effectively financing their operations at a zero percent interest rate. Companies such as Digital Globe, Sirius XM radio, Comcast, and Verizon have successfully employed this strategy.

Yet, the use of negative working capital over the long term is a myth. Ultimately, suppliers realize that they are lending money to their customers and respond in one of two ways. First, suppliers will raise the prices charged to their customers to cover the borrowing costs of the capital they have to raise to cover their operating expenses.

Alternatively, the suppliers decide to downgrade their relationships with their customers. That is, they may decide to no longer do business with these buyers (and in today’s environment, good suppliers can and do fire bad customers). They can also do business with these firms but not treat them as preferred customers. As a result, suppliers may be slow to correct problems with slow-paying customers; they may not send their best people to these customers to deal with problems; or they may not share new technical or process innovations with these customers.

Ultimately, such customers suffer through lower operating income. To illustrate, consider the results of the latest Supplier Working Relationships Index study reported on May 2015.

According to John W. Henke, if Ford, Nissan, FCA, and GM had improved their relationships with their suppliers by 8.7 percent, they would have realized an estimated $2.02 billion collective improvement in operating income (For more on Henke’s research, see “Lost Supplier Trust” from the May 2014 issue of Supply Chain Management Review).

The truth is that there is a benefit to buyers that earn preferred customer status from their suppliers. By paying promptly and by working closely with their suppliers, buyers are rewarded by getting access to the supplier’s best people, by being the first to benefit from a supplier’s innovation, and by learning from the supplier about changes taking place in the market or learning about a competitor’s actions. By turning to negative capital, such firms are “penny wise, but pound foolish.”

Our verdict? This conventional wisdom is a myth.

2. Conventional Wisdom: Economic Order Quantity should be used whenever possible because it is optimal
Usually, we promise there will be no math, but the EOQ formula, originally developed in 1913 by Ford W. Harris, is still widely used in inventory management to calculate the optimum production run or purchase quantity.

After more than 100 years, the EOQ has been taught to thousands of undergraduate and MBA students. It offers an attractive approach to ordering inventory - one that can be shown to be optimal. Its logic also makes sense at face value:

• as the order quantity increases, inventory holding costs rise;
• as the order quantity decreases, inventory costs fall;
• as the order quantity increases, ordering costs fall; and
• as the order quantity decreases, ordering costs rise.

Therefore, the best or optimal order quantity must be the one that balances the total inventory holding costs against the total ordering costs - exactly what the EOQ shows.

Yet, there are several problems with this approach. The first is that it limits attention to only ordering and holding costs. Ignored are issues such as the availability of adequate storage space for the excess inventory; challenges of obsolescence and perishability; or adequate shipping capacity to move the inventory from the supplier to the customer.

More importantly, the EOQ implicitly assumes that management can easily determine the costs of ordering and holding inventory.

Myth

• Push systems are best and further enhanced by the use of EOQ ordering logic.
• Sustainability comes at the cost of profit.
• Fashion clothing must be ordered in advance from low-cost suppliers located in low wage countries such as China.
• Quality manufacturing is costly to achieve.

The Supply Chain Breakthrough

• Toyota uses a production system with an emphasis on pull scheduling and order quantities of one.
• Unilever shows profit and sustainability can be simultaneously achieved.
• Zara employs fast fashion supply: Let’s build fashion clothing quickly in a location close to the market and let actual demand drive production.
• Phillip Cosby: Quality is free.

In many cases, especially when it comes to ordering costs, such costs are difficult to determine precisely. As Cecil Bozarth wrote in Economic Order Quantity Model, ordering costs should reflect only true variable costs incurred in placing the orders - not allocated ordering costs (for example, “last year, it cost our firm some $400,000 to place 10,000 orders; therefore the ordering costs are $40 per order or $400,000/10,000”).

Ordering costs also reflect purchasing practices and contract terms. Current strategic purchasing practices have resulted in situations where sourcing is not carried out per order; prices and costs are linked to long-term usage, not the quantity on a single order. Furthermore, due to the impact of technology, other costs such as stationery, order preparation, and postage have effectively disappeared.

In a world characterized by Lean, e-procurement, and long-term strategic purchasing contracts, the goal is not to use the EOQ but rather to move to a strategy of building what is required, when required, or ordering the minimum shipping quantity (if this is larger). Furthermore, as we see the adoption and spread of additive manufacturing (3D printing), we can expect a stronger movement to procuring what is needed when needed.

Our verdict? This conventional wisdom is also a myth.

3. Conventional Wisdom: Safety stock should be used because it is an important tactic for dealing with uncertainty
There is something very attractive about safety stock. As managers, we face uncertainty and change. Because there is a cost to being wrong (such as lost orders and unhappy customers), it makes sense to have extra inventory on hand just in case.

For most firms, the cost of a lost sale often outweighs the cost of the excess inventory. Finally, if there is one thing that we have learned from our research into supply chain risk, it is that such risk can have significant negative financial and operational impacts for the firm. Therefore, it makes sense to use safety stock.

Before going any further, we accept that there is a need for safety stock if it is used properly. That said, there are several potential problems with safety stock. One is that few firms use it properly. First, by using safety stock, we recognize that we are unable (or unwilling) to identify the underlying causes for the variance.

For example, we use safety stock because our forecasts are so bad. Yet, forecast accuracy can be improved by reducing lead time or by working more closely with our key customers. In other words, safety stocks encourage supply chain laziness. Second, safety stock is dead stock - once it’s there, it is always there. As soon as it is used, we have to replenish it.

Third, few firms revisit their safety stock policies once these policies have been set. Safety stock encourages a “set and forget” mentality.

Things change: It makes sense to regularly revisit and review such decisions. Maybe we can now reduce the need for safety stock because we can eliminate and control the reasons that gave rise to it in the first place. The need for such a review makes even more sense today because of the emergence of new and better planning tools and procedures.

As Carol Ptak and Chad Smith described in Orlicky’s Material Requirements Planning, the introduction of Demand Driven MRP (DDMRP), with its use of flexible buffers, continually adjusts the safety stock to reflect both present and future demand. It has even been shown to provide 100 percent customer service levels in the face of highly random patterns.

In other words, our verdict is that the use of safety stock is partially plausible.

4. Conventional Wisdom: The primary role of performance measurement is monitoring and control
Performance measurement plays a critical role in most organizations. As noted by What Management is: How it works and it’s everyone’s business by Joan Magretta, measures (or more appropriately metrics, which include not only the measures but also a standard and the consequences or reward/penalty for actual performance relative to the standards) make the strategic mission concrete and meaningful for everyone in the firm.

Yet, many managers see performance measures acting like a thermostat. That is, we set the standard (the minimum level of acceptable performance), the measure (how we are going to keep track), and the consequences. Measures tell us how we are doing. If the performance is below the standard, then we put pressure on the appropriate areas or people to improve performance; if it is above the standard, then we reward. Using measures, we keep the organization on track.

The problem is that this view is plagued by numerous misconceptions. First, while it is true that measures can be used to monitor performance, this is not the most critical role of performance measurement. Rather, performance measurement is used to communicate. It translates higher-level strategic objectives into specific tasks and actions that have to be carried for these objectives to be achieved. It tells everyone not only what is important, but also (more importantly) what is not important (if it is not measured, then it is not important).

It also identifies an acceptable level of performance and what can be expected to happen if that standard is not met or exceeded. Second, the thermostat analogy suffers from a critical flaw: It is backward looking, focusing attention on past actions. The problem is that the past is the past and cannot be undone. Rather, in today’s environment, the focus is on the future. Management is often engaged in forwardcasting or identifying the desired future state.

We are asked through our actions to make this future state a reality. When our actions do not meet expectations, the critical question for management to ask is whether the future state is still relevant and, if it is, then what actions and resources are needed to attain this desired future state. While we cannot change the past, we can shape the future.

Third, measures and metrics are often proxies or imperfect indicators of what is intended to be measured. Consequently, there is error inherent in the measures. That means that we are really not sure of whether what is being measured is really taking place or if it is indicative of what has to happen for us to achieve the desired future state.

Our verdict? This conventional wisdom is largely a myth.

5. Conventional Wisdom: If we use best practices, then we should improve performance and our competitiveness
The argument for this is fairly simple and very convincing: If we want to improve our performance, then what we have to do is to draw upon best practices. After all, these practices are drawn from the market leaders; we know that they work. If we too use them, then we will improve.

The problem with this line of logic is that it is flawed on so many different planes. First, if we and everyone else in our industry applies the same best practices, then over time we see a conver­gence to a common mediocrity - like the children in Lake Wobegone, everyone is above average; no one better or worse than the others.

Competitive advantage only occurs when you differentiate yourself from your competition. It makes sense to study best practices because they tell you not only what the competition can do well but what it has difficulty with. That is what Unilever did in 2010 when it focused on sustainability. But rather than mimic P&G’s emphasis on innovation, Unilever chose to differentiate itself - and so far, the strategy has worked.

Second, best practices are designed to achieve certain goals. These goals may not be the ones that are critical to you and your company. If I implement best practices drawn from Toyota’s Lean system, then these practices are supportive of goals dealing with reducing cost and variance. However, they may not be appropriate to my company’s goals if my strategy is to compete on responsiveness and flexibility.

Third, best practices are the most visible vestige of why some firms do well. But, they are only one component of a total system solution - a solution that includes strategy, culture, performance measurement, and training. By ignoring these other, less obvious elements, we doom ourselves to fail. Just because you use the same golf clubs as Jordan Spieth, Jason Day, or Rory McIlroy - all world class golfers - does not mean that you will be as good as they are.

Or, as Taiichi Ohno, the father of the Toyota production system put it:

“The key to the Toyota Way and what makes Toyota stand out is not any of the individual elements…But what is important is having all the elements together as a system. It must be practiced every day in a very consistent manner, not in spurts.”

Finally, focusing on best practices encourages companies to focus on what and how things are done, not why. Understanding the why is often more important because if we can understand the underlying logic, then we can apply these lessons to our situation in ways that work for our company and our specific situation (even when the practices do not work). It also forces us to understand the goals and limitations of the specific approaches (giving rise to the best practices) being implemented. That is an important insight.

Our verdict? This conventional wisdom is also a myth.

6. Conventional Wisdom: Show your employees a better way and they will use it
It goes without saying that we are in a period of turbulence and rapid change. What this means is that we expect to see existing procedures and processes replaced by newer, better approaches. Consequently, we have to be prepared to identify these better approaches and to introduce them into the appropriate settings.

The method is fairly straightforward: explain what we need to change, identify and describe the new approach, and let the people who are to use it, work with it. After all, they will see the advantages of the new approaches. Training then becomes the key.

Here’s the problem: Just because you expose someone to a new approach (especially when there is an existing system that appears to work) does not mean that they will accept it. In fact, often they don’t.

Upon trying, you will see three responses:

1. lip service (we say we use it even though we do not);
2. selective hearing (the person picks up on those practices or approaches consistent with the current ways of doing things, while not hearing the other approaches that are different); and,
3. gaming through measures (using the measures to show that the desired results are being achieved even if the people are not using the desired new approaches).

To bring about change, you must first discredit the current ways of doing things. The people who are to use the new approaches must see for themselves that the current approaches no longer work. This can be done through a crisis (the company declares bankruptcy; clear evidence that the current approaches don’t work), or by having your people work closely with the actual key customers or by introducing into the firm people from other companies who have worked with the new approaches.

Finally, bringing about change also means having a public execution or two - that is, firing highly visible people from within the firm who do not support the new approaches. Such actions strongly signal a desire to change and how the firm will deal with those who do not support the shift. In other words, changing management is not additive (we introduce one more new tool); it is substitutive (we replace the discredited old by the new).

So, again: This conventional wisdom is a myth.

The Importance of Myth Busting
In this article, we explored six examples of conventional wisdom, only to find that five were myths. In exposing each myth, we uncovered the seeds for new approaches. For example, in the negative working capital myth, we found that by being a good customer and paying quickly, the firm had an opportunity to build a closer relationship with its suppliers - a relationship that offered many potential benefits. These five myths are not the only ones that exist in supply chain management. Yet, why do such myths exist?

Myths exist because they explain what happens around us in a way that makes sense. They help identify what to look for next and how to deal with problems. Myths also affect our ability to deal with change. Myths, unfortunately, reflect either old thinking (the approach may have been right in the past but it is no longer appropriate) or incomplete or incorrect reasoning.

The problem with myths is that they get accepted as truth. When this occurs, they become mental prisons - discouraging people from challenging and rethinking current approaches and practices. It takes courage to challenge myths. Yet, when myths are challenged and the underlying “truth” exposed, we experience the opportunity for breathtaking success, as can be seen from the examples below.

Credit : http://www.supplychain247.com/article/misadventures_in_supply_chain_management?ajs_uid=6688G7237356A9P

Sudoku - Impact in Life and Supply Chain

I started playing Sudoku when i was 21 and used to hang on to the game during my travel time in the City Metro with one hand on the railing. Of course, Sudoku has actually taught my brain how to think and weigh different options and what are the most probably options to note before solving things..

But more than, Sudoku has actually taught me something quiet interesting.

1) You always have a logical reasoning behind every move in Life.
2) Contracting to point #1 though, A guess work might save you time to win the game . Compare that to life decisions you make and you would realize that the risk is basically what matters in the Time of Life. If you take that risk, you are solving the puzzle of life faster but on the other side, if the risk is not a calculated Risk, you are bound to fall into a trap hole sometime later in life and it would be very hard to trace back where things went wrong...
3) Sudoku when applied to my field of interest says , that there is logical process to solving every problem and there are only certain decisions which impact the the right solutions and to solve your Supply Chain solution faster, you need to fit the right problems at the right time by analyzing the connecting impacts.. You can make a guess, if a connecting impact actually hurts your puzzle but again that guess can either be a well calculated guess based on your analysis or can be vague based on your prior experience in the Supply Chain space(Something like a delphi method being used for Forecasting etc)

Keep Playing.. Anyways!!!

Trade war impacts on Supply Chain

Ref : https://moneyinc.com/will-the-u-s-china-trade-war-impact-on-supply-chain-operations/

Whisper it quietly, but the world is bracing itself for a trade war between the U.S. and China. This almost seems inevitable, with China having responded to Trump’s initial clampdown on exports by imposing a 25% tariff on a wide range of American imports.

Like most wars, however, we’re unlikely to see a winner in this dispute, while the fall-out could well impact on all trading nations across the length and breadth of the globe.

In fact, this trade war could have a particularly negative impact on supply chain operations, which remains a key part of global importing and exporting. Here’s how:

The U.S. vs. China in Numbers

On a fundamental level, a trade war between the U.S. and China represents a conflict between the two single biggest economies in the world.

In the case of America, their $19.42 trillion economy accounts for a staggering 25% of the gross world product, while the U.S. boasts exceptionally advanced technology along with superior natural resources. Not only this, but America also boasts an impressive GDP per capita, which is estimated at around $59,609.

While China may be categorised as a developing country, over time it has transformed itself from a centrally-planned and closed economy to a global hub for manufacturing and exporting. This is reflected by its unique GDP, which is estimated at $23.19 trillion and exceeds the corresponding figure for the U.S..

So, while its GPD per capita number is considerably lower at $16,676, there’s no doubt that China has grown into a true economic powerhouse.

How Will This Trade War Impact on Supply Chain Operations?

As we can see, a trade war between the U.S. and China has the potential to be seismic, while it may also have a considerable impact on global trade. This worldwide supply chain operations involving cross-border businesses, which play a fundamental role in driving exports, imports and global trade as a whole.

In order to analyse the impact of this prospective trade war on global supply chain operations, it’s important that we take this argument to its extreme. In the worst-case scenario, companies impacted by the implementation of hefty tariffs could be forced to relocate their factories or distribution centres, at considerable social and financial cost (such moves could cost high number of jobs, for example).

This could also have a knock-on effect for investment decisions, creating longer-term problems and sustainability issues.