Career Supply Chain Logistics by sel32858


Career Supply Chain Logistics document sample

More Info
									           THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

                                    October, 2007

                                Bernard J. La Londe
                  Emeritus Professor of Transportation and Logistics
                             The Ohio State University
                         Max M. Fisher College of Business
                    Supply Chain Management Research Group
                                   500 Fisher Hall
                                Columbus, OH 43210
                                   (614) 292-5233
                                (614) 688-3955 (fax)

                                  James L. Ginter
                                 Professor Emeritus
                             The Ohio State University
                         Max M. Fisher College of Business
                      Supply Chain Management research Group
                                  500 Fisher Hall
                               Columbus, OH 43210
                                  (614) 292-2267

                                    James R. Stock
                         Professor of Marketing and Logistics
                             University of South Florida
                         4202 East Fowler Avenue, BSN 3403
                               Tampa, FL 33620-5500

The support of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals for this project is
gratefully acknowledged.


Each year the annual Survey of Career Patterns in Logistics, conducted by the Supply
Chain Management Research Group at The Ohio State University, profiles the career
patterns of senior logistics/supply chain executives and explores how organizations
incorporate the functions of logistics. Data from the survey are also used to better
understand the current and to anticipate future trends in logistics and supply chain
management. The longitudinal perspective provided by this research stream is unique in
the Logistics/Supply Chain profession. Over the past thirty six years this study has
monitored both the evolution of the profession and the many dramatic changes in the
practice of supply chain management. Each year this survey is sent to senior U.S.
logistics and supply chain executives who are current members of the Council of Supply
Chain Management Professionals. This paper reports the findings of this thirty-sixth
annual edition of The Ohio State University Survey of Career Patterns in Logistics. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and support of CSCMP in this study.

This year’s survey had five general sections:
   • Respondent demographics and characteristics of their firms,
   • Respondents’ level and location within their respective organizations,
   • The work environment and activities experienced by the respondents,
   • Trends in supply chain practices, and
   • Respondents’ expectations regarding future changes in supply chain practices.


Our results are based on the responses to a detailed five-page survey instrument. As
noted above, the target respondents of the survey were senior logistics/supply chain
executives who are members of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals.
As has been the case in recent years, the achievement of satisfactory response rates is a
continuing challenge. Attempts at providing incentives and combining hard copy and
electronic media have been made. In addition, the survey instrument has been simplified
over time, to reduce the time required to participate in the study. We sincerely thank the
executives who took the time to respond to our survey this year.

This year, surveys were sent via email on an unsolicited basis to a sample of 1471
executives. The surveys were first sent via email in September, 2007, and then a repeat
mailing was sent to the same group about two weeks later. The email communication
failed for 102 executives, so the true effective survey size was 1369. The first wave
resulted in 84 responses, and the second, 56 additional, for a total of 140 responses. This

is a 10.23% response rate. Initial data screening led to elimination of 6 responses
because the firms were too small or the responses were not sufficiently complete.

Results in the following sections are based on this data base of 134 responses. Some
instances of missing data or partial responses result in a reduction in this sample size for
some of the specific analyses, as reported in the following sections. While the overall
sample size is adequate for aggregate analysis, it is not sufficient to portray respondent
subcategories with a high level of certainty. Each set of analyses is reported with the
corresponding sample size so that the reader can ascertain the amount of data on which
that particular analysis is based.

The completed survey data were processed under total anonymity. It should be noted that
the target population of this survey, senior executives who are members of the Council of
Supply Chain Management Professionals, may not be representative of other populations
of logistics executives, in North America or in other parts of the world. In addition, the
small sample size achieved in this and previous versions of this Career Patterns Survey
may result in some differences in results from year to year that are affected by the
random differences in the respondent pool. One must be very careful in making
comparisons between results from two specific years. As presented and discussed in the
following sections, our results were different in several important ways from those in
prior years. In order to provide as much detail and understanding as possible, the
presentation format for some of the sections changes from year to year.

The survey is structured to identify and explore general trends in the logistics discipline.
As will be discussed in the following sections, the longitudinal history of this study
enables us to see clear patterns over a long period of time, even though the results from
any particular year may be reported with some uncertainty. Throughout its history, the
study has been based on a sample that is carefully selected from a targeted universe that
is matched to the general objectives of the survey. The respondents continue to be the
ranking logistics/supply chain executives of leading firms. Their current practices,
demographics, and perceptions of the future provide valuable benchmarks and trends.


Respondents were asked to classify their businesses in one of seventeen industry
categories, including an “other” category. As in prior years, most (74.4%) of the
respondents were members of manufacturing firms, and 25.6% were from merchandising
firms (see Figure 1).

While the specific percentages from the different industries vary slightly from year to
year, this year the most frequent categories were again the Food and Consumer Packaged
Goods and the Retail/Wholesale industries (see Figure 2).

                   Respondents by General Industry Classification



                                Figure 1

 Respondent's Primary Industry
 Primary Industry Group                        n         %
 Food and Consumer Packaged Goods              31       32%
 Retail / Wholesale                            19       20%
 Chemicals                                     13       13%
 Industrial Durables/ Electro-Mechanical       15       15%
 Other                                         19       20%
 TOTALS                                        97

                                Figure 2

The firm sizes were analyzed by quartile in order to gain a more complete perspective of
the distribution sizes of firms represented in the study. The median revenue reported was
$2.4 Billion, with the distribution as shown in Figure 3. The bottom twenty five percent
of the firms had revenues of $167 Million, and the largest quartile of firms reported
median revenues of $16.25 Billion. As in previous years, there are executives of more,
smaller firms participating in the study.

                         Respondent Firms Revenue by Quartile
                           Quartile n     Median Revenue*
                         1st        29          167
                         2nd        30         1500
                         3          30         4500
                         4th            30             16250
                                    * in Millions of Dollars
                                           Figure 3

Prior studies have shown two clear patterns over time. First, we have seen an increasing
percentage of senior executives with “supply chain” in their title, instead of “logistics”.
This is in marked contrast to results from just a decade ago, when we were commenting
on the few firms that were beginning to establish operations with “supply chain” in their
names. The second clear trend has reflected an evolution of the logistics/supply chain
profession within the firm, in that the percentage of respondents with higher titles (vp and
director) has continued to increase. This year we attempted to gain additional insight into
the distribution of job titles. To do that, we presented the respondents with a larger array
of titles from which they could select their own. While the functions represented in the
titles are greater in number because of this instrument refinement, we can still see that
most of the respondents held titles at the director or vp level.

                                    Respondents' Job Title

                VP Transportation
                                        Distribution Dir
                    VP of SC
                                                      Distribution Mgr

                VP Operations

        VP Logistics
                                                                         Logistics Dir
     VP Distribution

   SC Senior VP/GM

       SC Mgr
           SC Dir

                         Other                             Logistics Mgr

                                 Figure 4

Details underlying Figure 4 and the median salaries for the corresponding groups are
shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows the hierarchy associated with the titles of manager,
director, and vp. This table also shows that, in general, the salary levels correspond
primarily with the organizational title rather than with the responsibility for logistics
versus supply chain. The notable exception to this pattern this year is that the VP
Logistics respondents reported salaries substantially lower than those of the other vice
president positions. Since the sample sizes are so small in this study, we would suggest
that this finding be monitored in subsequent versions of the survey and that no firm
conclusion be reached at this point.

                       Median Salary by Job Title
                Respondents' Job Title      Salary $         n=
           Logistics Mgr                        106,700      24
           Logistics Dir                        155,000      28
           Logistics VP                         160,000      8
           Supply Chain Dir                     150,000      9
           Supply Chain VP                      275,000      5
           VP Operations                        450,000      5
           Total                                             79

                              Figure 5


It has been clear over the past several years that logistics and supply chain executives
have had increasing scope and responsibility in their activities, as reflected in the job
titles. Respondents provided information on this trend by indicating the year in which
their firm first appointed a Distribution/Logistics/Supply Chain executive at the Vice
President level. Figure 6 shows how the frequency of such appointments increased over
time, with the more than half of the firms reporting such an appointment within the last
decade. Approximately one third of the firms have yet to make such an appointment,

We have also seen some evolution of the organizational structure associated with these
activities. This year we asked respondents to report the general structure used by their
firms to organize the logistics activities. As shown in Figure 7, most respondents
reported a combination of divisional and centralized activities, with a centralized logistics
staff being the second most common structure. The two structural formats would be
consistent with the significant portion of respondents with the title of vice president.
Having the logistics function as a part of a corporate division or as a separate logistics
division were less frequent. These findings were very similar to those reported last year.

                   Year a Distribution/Logistics/Supply Chain Senior Executive
                             Appointed (Vice President or Equivalent)







                Prior to 1990         1991 to 1995    1996 to 2000    2001 to 2006     Not Yet

                                                     Figure 6

                                 Organizational Format of Respondent Firms


   Separate Logistics Division

       Part of Each Corporate
  Logistics/Supply Chain Staff
   Combination of Divisional &
     Centralized Activities

                                 0%      5%    10%      15%     20%   25%    30%     35%   40%   45%   50%

                                                     Figure 7

Over the past several years, there has been some discussion about the organizational role
of the supply chain function. The simple form of the question is: “Is logistics a part of
the supply chain function or is the supply chain function part of the logistics function?”
Of course the questions surrounding the appropriate organizational structure to respond to
the pressures created by the globalization of the enterprise are much broader than
organizational boxes. In last year’s survey we began to explore the current organizational
practice. Figures 8a-8e show the results of a similar analysis for this current study. As is
the case in any individual year, small sample sizes reduce the power of our findings.
Consistency in findings over time will, however give us greater confidence in these
results. In Figures 8a-c, we have selected four executive logistics titles for organizational
analysis. The format for all of the Figures 8a-e is the same. The title and number of

responses for each figure is in the center of the box. At the top of the box, the arrows
point to the organization level through which the respondent reports. At the bottom of
the box, the arrows point to the current departmental affiliation of the executive.

Figures 8a, 8b, and 8c might be classified as traditional organizations. The Logistics
Managers typically report to a Director level executive and are primarily based in
logistics departments. It should be noted, however, that about a quarter of the Logistics
Managers are based in global supply chain or supply chain organizations. As would be
expected, the Logistics Directors (Figure 8b) report to a higher level executive. Nearly
half of the Logistics Directors report to Vice Presidents, and about one third report to
Group or Senior VPs. Forty percent of them are housed in logistics departments with 33
percent of the respondents in the group calling supply chain or global supply chain as
their home department.

                  Organization Structure: Logistics Manager

                               Sr/Grp VP               VP               Other
                                  16%                 10%                13%

                                        Reports to:

                                 Logistics Manager
                                           n = 31


            Supply Chain                                                   Logistics
                            Global SC      Other       Transportation
                13%                                                            52%
                              13%           10%               13%

                                    Figure 8a

                   Organization Structure: Logistics Director

                  VP                     Director                       Grp/Sr VP

                 46%                       20%                            31%

                                        Reports to:

                                 Logistics Director
                                           n = 35


             Supply Chain     Operations          Logistics              Global SC
                 20%             17%                  40%                  14%

                                    Figure 8b

                      Organization Structure: VP Logistics

              President                 VP                    Grp/Sr VP

                22%                    33%                        44%

                                     Reports to:

                          Vice President, Logistics


               SC/Global SC                           Logistics
                    33%                                 56%

                                 Figure 8c

A consistent structure is seen for the Vice Presidents of Logistics. Most are housed in
logistics departments, but about one third are located in supply chain or global supply
chain departments. Most of the Logistics Vice presidents report to other Vice Presidents,
with about 20% reporting to the president.

                      Organization Structure: SC Director

               Director                 VP                    Grp/Sr VP

                40%                    30%                        30%

                                     Reports to:

                              Supply Chain Director
                                      n = 10


               Supply Chain         Manufacturing             Logistics
                    40%                 20%                       40%

                                 Figure 8d

The reporting relationship for the Supply Director is similar to the Logistic Director’s
reporting relationship (Figure 8c). The Supply Chain Directors were affiliated with either
a supply chain department or a logistics department, in equal proportions. What appeared
to be an emerging organizational pattern last year was the one out of five Supply Chain

Directors that reported that their home base was an operations group. The same finding
was observed this year.
                   Organization Structure: VP Supply Chain

              President                COO               Exec/Sr VP

                40%                    20%                  40%

                                    Reports to:

                          Vice President, Supply Chain


                Supply Chain       Manufacturing         Global SC
                    40%                 20%                40%

                                 Figure 8e

Most of the Vice Presidents of Supply Chain reported to the Chairman, President, or
Chief Operating Officer of their firms (see Figure8e). Most of the Supply Chain VPs
reported that they were affiliated with either supply chain departments or global supply
chain departments. These observations for the Supply Chain Vice Presidents are
especially tenuous because of the small sample size. They are provided only to give an
observation that may be more valuable in the perspective of survey findings over time.
We would also note that these respondents indicated that the Supply Chain Vice
Presidents report higher in the organization than do the Logistics Vice Presidents.

With these analyses we attempted to identify a common hierarchy within the respondent
firms that would reflect either supply chain or logistics as being the department to which
the other reported. As was the case in last year’s survey, the results are sufficiently
mixed to prevent such a conclusion. It appears that some firms use the term logistics
throughout their organization, some use supply chain, and a few use both, but without a
commonly seen ordering.


Beyond the organizational structure, respondents were asked about ways in which they
spend their time. First, the amount of travel was examined. As shown in Figure 9, we
see a rather discontinuous distribution of responses. The quartile of respondents who
travel the most do so twice as much as the third quartile of respondents, at about half the
time, or 10 days per month.

                    Respondents’ Median Days per
                     Month of Domestic Travel by
                     Quartile         n      Median
                       1st            29        1
                      2nd             30        3
                       3rd            30        5
                       4th            28       10

                                Figure 9

The time spent in international travel is shown in Figure 10. The highest quartile
reported spending more than one fourth of their time in international travel. Half of the
respondents (first and second quartiles) reported very little international travel

                 Respondents’ Median Days per
                 Month of International Travel by
                   Quartile         n       Median
                     1st            29        0
                    2nd             30        0
                     3rd            29        1
                     4th            29        6

                                Figure 10

Figure 11 indicates the extent to which respondents reported being engaged in executive
education. We see that a quarter of the respondents (third quartile) reported spending
about one day per month in educational activity. The reported median of 20 days per year
for the fourth quartile is a bit more extensive education activity than was seen in prior
studies. The level was lower for the remainder of the sample.

               Respondents’ Median Days per Year of
                 (Personal) Education/Training By
                   Quartile          n       Median
                     1st             30         4
                    2nd              30         5
                     3rd             30        10
                     4th             31        20

                                Figure 11

Respondents were asked to indicate the activities for which they were responsible,
whether their role was direct or advisory, and the percent of their time devoted to each
activity. Results are shown in Figure 12. Most respondents reported directing the
activities of transportation, warehousing, and general management, with nearly half

directing global and inventory management activities. Their indications of percent of
time spent also reflected their greater involvement in these activities.

 LOGISTICS/ SUPPLY CHAIN                     Yes          No        Direct      Advise      % Time
 a. Forecasting                              68           37          28           52        5.8%
 b. Procurement                              74           37          41           40       9.2%
 c. Manufacturing Logistics                   67          42          34           38        7.4%
 d. Customer Service                         67           40          32           50        6.9%
 e. Transportation                           115           9          88           18       27.1%
 f. Warehousing                              98           16          67           31       16.2%
 g. Global                                   79           21          49           51        6.6%
 h. Inventory Management                     82           27          47           43       8.2%
 i. General Management                       69           31          50           26       12.6%
 j. Other                                     17           4          15            5          *
 Total                                                                                          100.0%
                                              Figure 12


The results for years within the firm and years in the management function are quite
interesting (see Figure 13). The distribution of tenure within the firm across the quartiles
indicates that the oldest group had many more years with the firm than the other three
groups. This represents something of a discontinuity in the data, in that most of the
respondents had been with their firm about ten years, but the executives who had been
with the firm the longest had been there over twice as long. It is also interesting that this
pattern was not seen for the reported tenure within the logistics/supply chain management
career path. The median number of years in the career was a bit less than 20, irrespective
of the number of years with the firm. For each quartile of respondents, the median
number of years in the career was greater than the median number of years with the firm.
It seems, therefore, that most of these senior executive respondents in the study had
considerable experience in their career and that most of them have changed employers
within that career. The responses indicate that even those executives who had been with
their firm the longest (median of 21 years) had begun their logistics/supply chain career
         Respondents’ Median Years with Firm and Years in the Logistics /
                       Supply Chain Management By Quartile
                         Median Years With    Median Years In Logistics / Supply
         Quartile   n          Firm                  Chain Management
           1st      33           2                            7
          2nd       34          5.5                          15
          3rd       33          11                           20
          4th       33          21                           28
                                      Figure 13

The ages of respondents who reported job titles of Director or Vice President were
examined (see Figure 14). The results show larger percentages in the 45 to 55 age range,
with fewer respondents reporting ages below or above that range.

                    Number of Directors and Vice Presidents by Age Group

     Count 10
                     Under 40    40 to 44           45 to 49        50 to 55     Over 55

                                 Figure 14

The reported compensation levels are shown for the different job levels in Figure 15, and
for the specific job titles in Figure 16. As indicated earlier in this report, we see that the
primary differences are between reported job levels rather than between logistics and
supply chain management job titles. In these results we should also note the small
number of supply chain vice presidents in the sample. The resulting salary figure is
therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. We would also observe that both figures 15
and 16 reflect noticeably higher salary levels for each category than were seen in last
year’s survey.
                            Median Executive Compensation




                0        50000   100000       150000       200000    250000    300000
                                            U.S. Dollars

                                 Figure 15

                          Median Executive Compensation by Title

    SC Director

        SC VP

   Logistics VP

   Logistics Dir

  Logistics Mgr

                   0       50000       100000          150000       200000    250000   300000
                                                     U.S. Dollars

                                   Figure 16

As shown in Figure 17, and for the first time in this series of surveys, all of the
respondents indicated having at least an undergraduate degree, and more than half
reported having an advanced degree. The most common graduate degree was MBA. The
Logistics/Supply Chain Management career path clearly has taken on the qualities of a
professional career.

                       Respondent’s Educational Background
                                                                      % of
                       Degree                    n                    total
                       Undergraduate           122                   100%
                       Advanced Degree          67                    55%
                                MBA             53         43%
                                Other           14         11%

                                         Figure 17


As in previous years of the study, respondents were asked a set of questions that enabled
them to indicate their priorities and expectations regarding future issues in logistics
management. One such question asked what factors they felt would influence the future
growth and development of the logistics/supply chain function. Results are shown in
Figure 18. The most important factor, by a significant margin, was judged to be Global
Supply Chain Management. Information technology and supply chain integration/
information leverage were tied for second most important. These findings are consistent
with those seen in other sections of this report. The responses reflect a continuing
expansion and integration of the logistics/supply chain activities, with particular

emphasis on the integration of global business activities. This trend was also reflected in
the job titles and reporting relationships within the respondents’ firms.

    Factor(s) That will Influence Growth and Development of Logistics/SC
                         Function over the Generation

 Factor(s)                                            Weighted Average*
 Global Supply Chain Management                                          1.53
 Information Technology / Technology                                     1.23
 Supply Chain Integration/Information/Leverage                           1.22
 Role in Firms Financial Performance                                     0.93
 Managing Change Process                                                 0.63
 Energy Availability and Cost                                            0.40
                      st               nd                 rd
 * Weighted 3 pt = 1 choice; 2 pts = 2 Choice and 1 pt = 3 Choice. Total was
 divided by the total number of respondents (125)

                                     Figure 18

The above cited trends were also seen clearly in the respondents’ indications of desired
contents of a 90 day course curriculum (see Figure 19). The first choice was Global
Supply Chain Management. Strategic management and planning/forecasting were next
most desired. These results appear to reflect a continuing escalation of the level of
logistics management within the firm. Logistics executives are concerned with general
management issues and how the logistics functions integrate with the firm’s other
functions. Technical supply chain implementation issues have a lower level of interest
for these respondents.

        Choice of Curriculum for 90 Day Course of Full Time Study
 Factor(s)                                          Weighted Average*
 Global Supply Chain Management                                       1.32
 Strategic Management &                                               1.27
 Lean Logistics                                                       1.02
 Financial Management/Impact/Accounting                               1.01
 Global Logistics                                                     0.69
 IT Applications/Integration                                          0.61
                     st                nd                  rd
 * Weighted 3 pt = 1 choice; 2 pts = 2 Choice and 1 pt = 3 Choice. Total
 was divided by the total number of respondents (121)

                              Figure 19

Respondents were asked about their firms’ strategic partnerships with key accounts.
Figure 20 shows that, as in prior studies, the frequencies of such strategic partnerships
continue to increase. Further, we continue to see an expectation of additional
development of such partnerships. Respondents indicated that by 2008 they expect that
at least half of their firms will have strategic partnerships developed with the key
supplier, and customer accounts. Strategic partnerships with 3rd party providers continue
to lag slightly.
                    Best Practices in Supply Chain Management
                     Strategic Partnerships with Key Accounts





                   2006                  2007                   2008                 2009

                             Suppliers          Customers          3rd Party Providers

                                         Figure 20

In Figure 21 we see the incidence of one such strategic partnership format, co-design of
products and short cycle manufacturing. It appears that about one third of the firms will
be engaged in these collaborative activities for the foreseeable future. We would note
that these results are consistent with those in prior years, with the percentages of adoption
of the practice continuing to increase into the future.
                      Best Practices in Supply Chain Management:
                    Co-Design of Products/Short Cycle Manufacturing



  %   30.0


                  2006                   2007                  2008                  2009

                                         Co-design          Short Cycle Mfg

                                                 Figure 21

Figure 22 gives an idea of the expected format of relationships with the firms’ key
accounts. We see that the respondents expect continued development of customized
approaches and with electronic connections with key accounts. The expectation is that
the large majority of the firms will have electronic connection with key accounts by 2008
and that more than half will have a customized approach to management of their key
accounts by that time.
                    Best Practices in Supply Chain Management
                             % of Key Accounts with:



  % 40.0


                   2006              2007                 2008                  2009

                             Electronic Connections       Customized Approach

                                              Figure 22

The evolution of active collaboration (CPFR) with key accounts seems to be developing
more slowly (Figure 23). It is steadily growing, however. The percentages of firms who
have actually adopted this practice and who anticipate doing so are substantially greater
in this survey than in prior years
             Best Practices in Supply Chain Management Implementation:
                                       % CPFR




  %   25.0



                   2006               2007                2008                  2009


                                     Figure 23

Previous studies noted the development and use of cross functional teams in supply chain
management. In this study we see that more than half of the respondents’ firms use such
practices (Figure 24). The expectation of further adoption is somewhat more restrained
than in prior years, however. In this year’s study we see an expectation that adoption of
this practice may begin to level off at around 60% adoption. This is a lower anticipated
level of adoption than was reported in previous studies.

                           Best Practices in Supply Chain
                           % of Cross Functional Teams





                  2006               2007               2008                2009

                                     Figure 24

Not all innovations in the practice of supply chain management are being adopted at high
rates, however. In Figure 25 we see that the incidence of adoption of RFID tagging for
outbound shipments remains very low, at 2% adoption, and that the expectation is that it
will not reach 10% adoption within two years. We would note that both these reported
actual adoption levels and the anticipated levels are below those reported in last year’s
study. With such low adoption rates for this technology, its adoption as industry standard
practice is not likely to occur anytime soon.

                     Best Practices in Supply Chain Management
                       % RFID Tagged Outbound Shipments





  %   4.0




                  2006                2007                2008                2009

                                      Figure 25


The results of the 2007 Survey of Career Patterns in Logistics lead to two clear and
general conclusions. First, the evolution of logistics management/supply chain
management both as a career path and as a management function within the firm
continues.     We see this evolution reflected in the academic background of
logistics/supply chain executives, in their titles, in their salaries, and in their reporting
relationships within their firms.

A second clear trend in these results is somewhat newer. Last year, for the first time, we
reported a general shift toward the globalization of logistics management and supply
chain management. The job titles, reporting relationships, education desires, travel
patterns, and expected future trends all reflect much greater involvement of the entire
global supply chain in the firm’s logistics management activities and in the organizational
units responsible for these activities.


For 36 years we have conducted the Annual Career Patterns Survey and presented it in
turn to NCPDM, CLM and now CSCMP. The original objective for the survey was to
poll the membership of the organization and obtain feedback on who distribution, logistic
and supply chain members were, what they did, their work environment and their views
of the future. We saw major changes in the distribution and logistics function as senior
management began to recognize the cost and importance of the flow of goods in their
organizations. We saw major changes prompted by the introduction and adaptation of
computers, technology, information systems, enterprise systems and the changes continue
today. In the 2007 Career Patterns Survey there is continued evidence of the leading
edge of a third major change that will reshape the way firms respond to global supply and

demand. As firms become more global in strategy, they must reconfigure their structure
(organization) to effectively implement the firm’s global strategy. We see clear signs of
this globalization of management within the logistics/supply chain functions.

The findings of this 2007 survey, as has been the case in each of the prior surveys, are
limited by the sample size achieved. With this limitation, last year we observed that the
findings seemed to suggest that globalization is prompting rapid change in both the
membership of CSCMP and the business firms that these CSCMP members represent.
The findings of this 2007 survey are consistent with this conclusion.

The 2007 survey raises a number of difficult questions that are made even more difficult
by the immediate pressures for change. The speed of change in the business climate, the
depth of this change, and the direction of change seem unprecedented. While these
changes are affecting all management functions of the firm, the firm’s competitiveness
may turn on the response to the changes over the next decade.

The rapidly changing external environment has a dramatic impact on strategic planning in
logistics and supply chain management. The prices and availability of oil, the financial
markets and availability and cost of working capital, competitors/competition, and
commodity prices are current examples of rapidly changing external forces.

One implication of the rapid changes is their impact on human resource development.
The forecasted changes in the supply chain and the ability to remain flexible create
unprecedented needs for supply chain management skills.

The educational and research efforts of universities and of professional organizations
such as CSCMP will be crucial as executives struggle with developing effective
approaches to a very different set of competitive demands.


To top