Guest column

Houston expert: Here are 3 tips for a resilient supply chain during the coronavirus outbreak

Coronavirus likely will affect your supply chain — here's what to keep in mind. Getty Images

Consumers rarely consider the intricacies of managing a cohesive supply chain when the process needed to deliver product to market is free of disruptors. In short, engineering and design work is completed, a bill of materials is established, material is sourced, and product is manufactured.

Manufacturers often expect to easily purchase product off the shelves or online. When external factors come into play that have the potential to disrupt supply chains and the quick availability of product, proper management is even more critical for businesses and their customers.

During my 23 years at Smith, the world's largest open-market distributor of electronic components, I've witnessed various market disruptions and shifting supply chain dynamics. I can confidently say that the coronavirus outbreak is heavily uncharted territory for the technology industry. Mitigating supply chain disruptions during troubling times, however, is familiar to us. Even through uncertainty, I want companies to know that there are many options to keep their supply chains active.

Here are my top three tips for properly managing your supply chain during the coronavirus outbreak:

Assess inventory levels and run outages scenarios

It is important to not only assess your on-hand inventory levels but to quickly gauge the impact and availability of product from key suppliers. As a precaution and to prevent further spread of the virus, many electronic component manufacturing plants in China were shut down for weeks, and some are still running at limited capacity with prominent labor shortages.

Finding out which manufacturers have been shut down or are affected by the virus will help determine lead times and availability requirements. Surveying suppliers is an efficient way to gauge manufacturers' levels of impact and determine your own needs. Bear in mind what possible logistics delays you may encounter when assessing your material levels.

Build contingency plans with alternative sources.

With supply constraints from traditional sources being almost an inevitability, having flexible sourcing options and relationships with key suppliers is a prime strategy for contingency planning.

On top of that, make sure your sourcing partner has put stringent quality procedures in place and is certified to the highest industry standards. Expanding your AVL (approved vendor list) and qualifying other manufacturers will help keep lines running according to forecast.

Ensuring heightened supplier screenings with end-to-end evaluation transparency is even more essential during times of disruption. Trusted, multichannel sourcing capabilities are prime options in the face of the consistently evolving global situation.

Stay vigilant, and work closely with your emergency response team.

Uncertainty will continue to play a major role throughout the outbreak situation. From my experience, staying up to date with the latest news and maintaining frequent communication with both internal and external parties is one of the most proactive approaches to disruptive situations.

Smith's shipping and logistics hubs have mirrored capabilities and are located in Houston, Hong Kong, and Amsterdam, so we have been able to keep our operations running throughout the outbreak. Although Smith's business operations have continued without any shutdowns, the electronics supply chain has been significantly impacted, and disruptions will be felt for some time. The effects of the coronavirus are expected to trickle down to end consumers, as new product introductions for some consumer electronics have been delayed. Reports are even indicating that the supply and availability of technology products during the peak holiday season may be disrupted.

With the millions of components that go into everything from consumer electronics to oil and gas and medical equipment, our industry could see notable shortages in supply throughout the year. I encourage all companies and especially our friends here in Houston to thoroughly evaluate their supply chains. Utilizing these tips to implement a resilient supply chain will help build a strategic business outlook.

------

Todd Burke is president at Houston-based Smith and Associates.

Trending News

Building Houston

 
 

Having diversity of thought among the leadership team is usually regarded as a positive, Houston researchers found that conflict can cause more harm than good. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, management researchers have assumed that diversity of opinion about company strategy, even when it causes conflict among senior managers, leads to higher-quality strategic decisions and improved firm performance.

It turns out there isn’t evidence to support that belief.

Rice Business Professor Daan Van Knippenberg has spent his career studying topics related to team performance, decision making, diversity and conflict. When a research team led by Codou Samba, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, approached him with an offer to test longstanding assumptions about conflict related to company strategy in senior management teams, he jumped at the opportunity.

In his experience, the business case for diversity is strong, but it comes with caveats. “Diversity of perspectives can lead to better solutions to complex problems, but only when team members are open-minded enough to listen carefully to each other and really integrate another point of view into their decision-making process,” he says. This does not seem to apply to differences in opinion about what company strategy should be.

When managers dig in their heels and refuse to consider and integrate other perspectives, that two-way door of communication slams shut and conflict ensues. “The popular idea that conflict is actually good for firms went against all my knowledge,” says Van Knippenberg. “It’s annoying that this idea has floated around in my field for so long when the evidence really points the other way.”

The team led by Samba, which also included C. Chet Miller, a professor at the University of Houston, conducted a quantitative summary and integration of 78 papers that provide data about strategic dissent — a term used to describe diverging opinions about strategic goals and objectives on senior management teams — and its influence on strategic decision making and firm performance.

Every paper that made a prediction about strategic dissent (only a few did not) posited that strategic dissent leads to better outcomes for firms.

In their paper, “The impact of strategic dissent on organizational outcomes: A meta-analytic integration,” the research team used a deep well of empirical data to demonstrate that the opposite is true. Turning common wisdom on its head, they found that strategic dissent among senior managers actually leads to lower-quality decisions and impaired firm performance.

The authors identify two major reasons for the negative impact of strategic dissent on firm outcomes.

First, strategic dissent causes relational breakdown among senior managers. “If managers walk away from a team meeting thinking they just had a conflict instead of a productive discussion, the outcome is rarely positive,” says Van Knippenberg. The two sides retreat into their respective corners, believing the other side to be wrong and closing their minds to further information.

Second, strategic dissent leads to less relevant information being exchanged among managers. Inevitably, this blockage impairs the decision-making process. If a marketing director and an operations director are at odds, for example, they are less likely to share the marketing- or operations-specific information that is needed to make an optimal team decision.

Teams can benefit from diversity of thought, but it is not always clear what conditions need to be in place for that to happen on senior management teams that disagree about the firm’s strategic direction. CEOs — the leaders of senior management teams — would do well to realize that it takes an effortful investment to foster open-minded discussions of diverging views on the organization’s strategy, to create an environment that encourages members to express dissenting perspectives while absorbing the perspectives of others, and to prevent vested interest and power dynamics from determining the outcomes of such discussions.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Daan Van Knippenberg, the Houston Endowed Professor of Management at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University, C. Chet Miller, the C.T. Bauer Professor of Organizational Studies at C. T. Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston, and Codou Samba, an assistant professor at Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Trending News