Great But Not New Tools   
 
As I read and reread the article "Forecasts Demand Change" (May 2010), I was impressed with how companies like Paramit, Dow Chemical, Del Monte, HP and others are coping with the demand and leadtime volatility brought upon by the recession.

At the same time, I am also aware that some of the tools and concepts being used have, in fact, been available and taught as good supply chain practice for years. For example, the practices of requesting a rolling forecast from major customers and sharing the potential longer term future needs for materials with key suppliers have been "good" practices for some time. The utilization of consignment inventory (Paramit) and the use of postponement of final product configuration well into the distribution network (Hewlett-Packard) are also great, but not new, tools.

The profitability, and potentially the survival pressures of the recession have stimulated companies to visit their process arsenal of tools to fight the risks of recession. This is commendable and appropriate, and I truly hope that when the economy stabilizes and demand volatility lessens, companies do not put these powerful tools back on the shelf, but continue to employ them to continuously improve their supply chain performance. Adversity can and will make us stronger in the long run.

Ron Althaus
Principal
Althaus Educational Services
Cincinnati, Ohio

Accountability For BP

I just read an article that provided an update to the Deepwater Horizon rig fire in the Gulf.  It literally made me angry and sick to my stomach to think about the destruction that this incident is causing humanity and our planet (and we do not know what the full extent of the damage will be). Shortly afterwards, I read your article ("Investigators Eye Refinery Safety," May 2010) about BP and the 2005 Texas City disaster. It is quite obvious to me that BP considers the fines imposed as being "the cost of doing business" and it is "business as usual" once the dust settles.

BP made over $14 billion in profits last year. The safety technology is off-the-shelf and the costs associated with the necessary controls are relatively insignificant. There is no rational explanation for this disaster to have happened.

View article on one page