“So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.” - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
Picture a white lab mouse.
Now picture a fully grown man.
If someone asked you to describe each of those images, what would you say?
You’d probably talk about the relative size, shape and colour of each. Pressed further, you may talk about things such as intelligence, diet and habitat. Indeed, the differences between these species is irrefutable – at the merest glance, one would never confuse a man with a mouse.
But what if you were instead asked to list all of the things that mice and humans have in common?
- two eyes
- two ears
- two forelimbs and two hind limbs
- two lungs and two kidneys
- one heart
- one liver
- one pancreas
- digestive system with stomach, intestines, bowel
- ingests water and organic matter for survival
- processes oxygen into carbon dioxide through respiration
- two possible genders
- etc.
This list could go on for quite awhile. In point of fact, according to a 2002 research project that compared the genomes of mice and humans:
“Among the findings are that mice and human beings both carry about 30,000 genes. Differences within these individual genes -- the precise sequences of the four-letter DNA code -- spell out the obvious differences between the two mammalian species. On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes are 85 percent the same.”
Obviously there’s a good reason for using mice in medical experiments!
The point here is that the similarities are as plain to see as the differences. But the superficial differences are fewer, so we choose to attach greater importance to them and take the “hum drum” (but much deeper) similarities for granted.
In supply chain planning, this tendency to focus on the superficial differences is widespread. Here are some of the examples that we hear all the time:
- “sure that works for light bulbs, but not perishable produce”
- “we sell electronics, not chicken noodle soup”
- “we’re in the apparel business – our supply chain needs to be managed totally differently”
All of these statements are correct – if you only look at the superficial differences, such as the predictability of the demand or the length of the product lifecycle.
But from an end-to-end supply chain management point of view, is there really that much difference between a pack of light bulbs, a head of lettuce, a cell phone and a sweater?
Like mice and men, do they not have “85% of their DNA” in common?
- they are all produced and move through a logistics and inventory network from the point of manufacture to consumers’ hands
- they all experience transformations and consume resources along the way
- they all experience consumer demand and have finite supply
- they all have weight, cube and value
It’s true that we must document and deal with the superficial differences as necessary, but we must also have a planning environment that’s manageable and not unduly complicated.
When setting up a supply chain planning infrastructure (processes and systems) we must resist the temptation to develop separate processes and tools every time we have an imperfect fit. For the sake of simplicity, manageability nd efficiency, maybe we should first try to “bend” the 15% so that it can be managed with the other 85% and focus on the rule, not the exception!
