“Push or Pull” Part II: Introduction of a pre-negotiated multiplying factor.

Because of the perishable and fragile nature of fresh food, matching supply with demand can be extremely difficult.
image

November 06, 2012 - SCMR Editorial

Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of a two-part feature authored by Dr. Tom McNamara, The ESC Rennes School of Business, France

Recent findings by researches (Xiao and Chen 2012) argue that overall better results can be achieved by using a pull system. But not just any pull system. They suggest using a pull system with a special mechanism known as a fixed inventory-plus factor (FIPF).

Because of the perishable and fragile nature of fresh food, matching supply with demand can be extremely difficult. This is due to the fact that, quite often, a percentage of the product will be lost during shipping and never reach its final destination. This could mean lost profits for the supplier (a lower quantity than ordered actually reached the buyer).

Sometimes a supplier might be tempted to slightly increase the amount shipped over what was ordered to ensure that the final amount received will be equal to the original order. But this puts more risk on the supplier, since it is they who are normally responsible for any losses during transport.

This can create disincentives between the members of the supply chain and result in overall lower performance (and profits).

The solution? Introduction of a pre-negotiated multiplying factor.

The way it works is that when an order is received, the amount shipped will be slightly higher (again, according to some fixed multiple) than the actual order. If the amount of goods received at the final location is then higher than that which was ordered (as a result of less being lost than was expected in transit due to spoilage or damage), the supplier would then be compensated for any overage at a predetermined discounted wholesale price.

The benefits to this system are that risk is more evenly shared amongst the supply chain members, there is a better alignment of incentives, and the supplier is compensated for perishable goods that would normally just end up as waste.

Previous: Push or Pull:  Which is Better When Dealing With Perishable Goods?



Subscribe to Modern Materials Handling magazine

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Find out what the world's most innovative companies are doing to improve productivity in their plants and distribution centers.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Recent Entries

Process improvement leads the way for understanding how automation can reduce human effort and intervention. Yet 39% of companies have not performed process reengineering in the last year.

New division to provide turnkey material handling systems for warehousing and distribution, post and parcel, and industrial markets.

The year 2015 marks a major milestone for the industry, MHI is celebrating its 70th anniversary at ProMat 2015, held March 23-26, 2015.

Equipment Leasing and Finance Foundation's monthly confidence index at 66.3 in February, up from 66.1 in January.

Actuators and mechanical systems had a strong year, increasing 12% to $467 million.

Article Topics

News · Supply Chain · Inventory · Shipping · All topics

About the Author

Patrick Burnson, Executive Editor
Patrick Burnson is executive editor for Logistics Management and Supply Chain Management Review. Patrick covers international trade, global logistics, and supply chain management. He lives and works in San Francisco, providing readers with a Pacific Rim perspective on industry trends and forecasts. Contact Patrick Burnson

Comments

Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.