“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

Made up of nine- to 14-year olds, six teams of eight will face off in a series of

Parent company's Logistics & Automation Division began servicing North American customers in 1962, 12 years before Murata machinery was established.

Pack Expo and Pharma Expo to draw 2,400 exhibitors in more than 1.2 million net square feet of exhibit space.

Cloud-based manufacturing execution systems grant visibility into centralized or global manufacturing environments.

In-plant trailers represent a tried and true method of moving materials through plants safely and efficiently. While trailers look alike at first glance, there are some significant differences that greatly affect performance and cost. The wise purchaser will study the differences and select the system that makes the best sense for the specific application. This complimentary white paper addresses the most important design factors to consider when specifying in-plant trailers.

Article Topics

News · Inventory · Supply Chain · 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.