The
RFID Power Play
by Rob Handfield |

|
In
June 2003, Wal-Mart gave the edict that its top
100 suppliers would need to tag pallets and cases
with RFID chips by January 2005. The deadline
is now 2006 and includes all suppliers, not just
the top 100, but Wal-Mart has made no statement
regarding when it will start reading all these
tags and is doing little to settle the nerves
of consumer products companies. The fact that
it is remaining closed on its enrollment of readers
suggests that the measure is more about control
and less about inventory.
Can you fight Walmart?
This is highly unlikely. However, the SCRC is
conducting research for one of our new partner
companies, GlaxoSmithKline, that can help provide
insights into how RFID can or cannot be exploited.
While you can't fight Wal-Mart, but you can take
the pain out of its initiatives and benefit from
them, consumer companies need to band together
to standardize RFID tagging and push 3PLs to take
some of the responsibility.
It's not the first time that Wal-mart has taken
the lead. VMI, EDI, factory gate pricing, and
many more initiatives have come out of it, which
were all designed to provide greater transparency
and control over inventory. But is it also a means
to further erode the suppliers' control over margin?
Factory gate pricing stripped the suppliers of
any margin that they could make in logistics execution,
but at least the intrusion stopped at the gate.
However, the RFID level of tracking could provide
the transparency that Wal-Mart needs to control
the margin throughout its entire chain. At best,
this means that consumer companies need to fit
tags prior to dispatch, but eventually it will
affect packaging suppliers and may even stretch
as far as growers. Some reports speculate that
smaller suppliers will be less concerned by this
revelation than large companies because of the
reduced number of SKUs involved and the extra
time they have to comply. But then the smaller
suppliers have less buying power to reduce tag
costs and less chance of taking advantage of the
technology to offset their own costs. It's a net
loss for the small guy.
Can I, as a lower ranked supplier to Wal-Mart,
afford to step out of line and say no?
The answer to that question is "who cares?"
This is about Wal-Mart's convenience, not the
suppliers'. The fact that the consumer companies
might be upset means nothing unless they pool
together to defy the retailer. But if they're
going to do that, then why not make it a positive
move rather than a negative one? Given that the
suppliers are going to have to abide by this directive
in the end, then why can't the 3PL services provide
the reader capability as a shared service model
to a consortium of suppliers in a similar way
as when VMI became a requirement? Plus, in order
to reduce cost and satisfy the minimum Wal-Mart
requirements, the CPG companies should also decide
on a standard for tagging information and for
tag types in order to aggregate the demand and
source it.
The Auto-ID Center at MIT has done a significant
amount of work on RFID standards. The group has
been field-testing the technology since the end
of 2001, and on Sept. 15 of this year will officially
launch the finished version of a system that people
can use. Kevin Ashton, a leader at the center,
notes that Auto-ID is information technology
that will give you real-time, all-the-time visibility
about every product in the supply chain.
Rather than jumping into it full-scale, Ashton
recommends that companies begin taking baby
steps in piloting the technology. He notes
that I think its incumbent on anybody
who draws a salary as a supply chain manager to
make a clear-minded assessment of the auto-ID
opportunity and come to an opinion they can defend.
This includes people from both sides of the fence,
including those who are extremely cautious after
being burned by the dot-com mania.
How? Managers should begin doing a little something
with this technology, to pilot its use in one
or more products and identify the learning required
to deploy it. Companies should also begin to identify
the costs of implementation, as well as the potential
benefits. For example, a key benefit to pharmaceutical
companies would be improved tracking, which could
lead to reductions in counterfeiting and theft,
especially in logistics pipelines in developing
countries.
The Takeaway
Standards in tagging and 3PLs taking on reader
capabilities would satisfy Wal-Mart and provide
price aggregation so that companies can participate.
This is a much better approach than telling your
strongest customer that you won't play ball. Companies
should worry less about the robustness of the
technology, and more about the motives and the
impotency that it implies regarding a supplier's
ability to control its own destiny.
The SCRC has initiated a working group of MBA
students and graduate engineering students, working
with Professor Michael Kay of Industrial Engineering,
to begin studying the implementation of RFID technology,
and developing models for understanding the business
costs and benefits implicit in the technology.
Anyone interested in becoming more involved in
this study can contact me at Robert_Handfield@ncsu.edu
to become involved in the working group.
Sincerely,
Rob Handfield
|