Matt Weller
Founder, Naviga Supply Chain

And not just literally green in colour! True, it’s a big old boat with a V-8, that gets roughly 19 miles per gallon, and it predates modern emissions systems. But, it’s more environmentally friendly than it first appears.  

I’ve owned this car for 26 years. Usually it gets a thumbs up, people smile and wave. Recently however it gets some comments like, “you shouldn’t be allowed to drive that, you’re killing the earth”. This was said by a proud Electric Vehicle owner who just got back from a vacation in the UK.

So how can this car be “green”? The answer is simple, and it is the same answer that applies no matter if you’re talking about politics, the environment, or the many supply chain problems we have today:

Context is everything!

We are bombarded daily with sensational messaging that abandons context to manipulate emotional reactions, for anything ranging from political views to your next purchase of a good or service.

No matter the subject, if you’re serious about making real results, details and context matter. I’ll give an example and show how it applies to supply chain.  

A basic example:
My ’69 Chevy Impala has driven a total of 13,000 miles in the 26 years have owned it. That averages to 500 miles per year. Antique cars don’t get around much by modern driving standards!

In 13,000 miles, my car has burned approximately 684 gallons of fuel in the name of my own enjoyment. The hobby of owning and maintaining this car not only brings me joy but also challenges engineering problem solving skills, sourcing skills, and forces learning new skills (such as welding). It helps me to relax and encourages me to take time to productively de-stress.
Now let's look at how that compares to a vacation to the UK

Boeing advertises that a 777 averages between 150-200 gallons during taxiing and 4,000 to 10,000 gallons during take off. On average, a 777 carries 301 passengers and burns 0.013 to 0.017 gallons per passenger per mile[1] Based on this, a rough (but not at all exact) understanding of fuel burned to take a flight to the UK for the sake of comparison, can be attained. The detailed math has been provided at the end but the chart below shows the summary data.
Distance to UK (Toronto Pearson to London Heathrow)

7 hours 5 minutes, 5707 kilometers (converted to miles = 3546.165)[2]

If I add up total consumption of fuel over the entire lifetime of my car (53 years, 133,000 miles averaging 19 mpg) including the first 20 years when it was a daily driver, it equals roughly 7,000 gallons, still less than half of a one-way trip to the UK by the lowest estimates!

Without context, my car of course looks like it is causing more harm to the environment compared to a fully electric car. However, when looking closer at fuel consumption of our recreational habits, a one-way trip across the ocean caused approximately 27 times as much impact in just a few hours (41 times if you rely on the high estimates) than my car has in 26 years.

But wait! You’re comparing personal use with an entire aircraft you might say. Well, the data from above shows us that a single passenger accounts for between 60 and 122 gallons one way. By the time my friend makes his return trip, he’s burned the equivalent amount of fuel that my vintage car would use in 4.5 years on the low side, 9.3 years on the high side! However, if you consider how many planes are in the air at any given time, vs vintage cars on the road, the CO2 contribution of old cars becomes so miniscule that it is statistically irrelevant to the global (or local) problem.

To be clear, I am not suggesting people should not travel. Nor am I suggesting they shouldn’t feel good about owning an EV. But I am suggesting everyone should look at their own individual lifestyles and decide what impact they are having, what benefits they receive from it, and what is the compounded effect. There are no one-size fits all solutions, context is key and without seeing the whole picture we are basing judgements on assumptions that are likely to be false.
​
Why is Context Important for Supply Chain Resiliency?
We are living in a world of endless disruption, challenges, and problems. And just like environmental and political concerns, the problems are very real but many solutions are often “shell games” of selectively reporting and concealing different aspects of the problem, and almost always with a spin.

So how can you build a supply chain that is agile and resilient? With context!  Dr. W Edwards Deming, a world-renowned engineer and statistician, would refer to this as appreciating and understanding the system in which your business operates. There are two principles of systems I want to highlight:

1. You cannot understand a system as a whole, from within it.
2. You cannot correct a system by tampering with it, it will always become worse.

It is important to note that tampering is the inevitable result of making changes - no matter how big, small, or well intentioned - while not understanding the system fully and quantitatively. And two concepts that go along with these are:

• Correlation does not equal causation
• Not everything already existing is problematic, not everything new is improvement, and problematic vs improvement cannot even be measured without quantitative context.

For any business with a supply chain (which is pretty much any business!), you cannot understand your own system from within. It requires persons and/or data from outside your system to detail out the realities, unbiased by internal interpretations, goals, preferences/beliefs, or politics. It also requires a structured approach to evaluate those realities that can stand up to scrutiny. It requires specific investigation into the business since while fundamentally all businesses have the same overall challenges (profit/loss, labour/productivity, markets) the details (context!) are what makes one fail and the other succeed. No two companies have the same details. The variables in every system must be understood in detail to provide proper context.

Without this level of attention, things get worse. Today’s supply chains are a global example of this in real time where solutions are attempted in isolation rather than considering the entire system. We are making public policies, trade decisions, staging political campaigns, throwing money at some areas while ignoring others, and we still try to do this from an isolated solution-selling point of view, not from a data-based system solution point of view. Locally, at the individual business level, (particularly Small and Medium Enterprises) surviving the day takes priority. So, in turn, as an overall system, things get worse at the local level, which in turn drives global system errors, which feeds back to the local level in a runaway feedback loop.

We can’t “tamper” our way out of these challenges. And we can’t improve any system that we do not see or understand. When you see social media posts especially about supply chain that say “25% of companies have X supply chain problem” or “40% of manufacturers think Y” as an example, you know immediately it’s misleading if it doesn’t specify: what companies, in what industry, making what products, based on what commodities, in what geographies, under what trade agreements, based on what data, from what source, collected for what purpose, funded by who, etc. Because it all matters.

Context is King. Beware any person or product that evades providing specific (data based) context to anything, as they are not contributing to the solution. The only way out of our biggest business challenges are straight through them, navigated by context.

Further Reading

• I highly recommend looking up Deming’s Funnel Experiment to understand tampering as well as his definitions of common cause and special cause variation. A google search turns up a short video that illustrates these concepts, the link can be found in the footnotes below)[3]
• Peter Senge’s detailing of systems and bullwhips in “The Fifth Discipline – The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization”)

 
Math calculations explained
Fuel consumed in flight (gallons per passenger)
Low end: 0.013 x 3546.165 = 46.100
High end: 0.017 x 3546.165 = 60.285
 
Taxiing consumption (gallons per passenger)
Low end: 150 x 2 (taxi at take off, and at landing) = 300 ÷ 301 passengers = 0.997
High end: 200 x 2 (taxi at take off, and at landing) = 400 ÷ 301 passengers = 1.329
 
Take off (gallons per passenger)
Low end: 4000 ÷ 301 passengers = 13.289
High end: 10,000 ÷ 301 passengers = 33.223
 
Total consumption (gallons per passenger)
Low end: Flight (46.100) + Taxiing (0.997) + Take off (13.289) = 60.386
High end: Flight (60.285) + Taxiing (1.329) + Take off (33.223) = 122.000
 
Total fuel consumed by the aircraft (gallons):
Flight
Low end: 0.013 x 3546.165 = 46.100 gallons per passenger x 301 passengers = 13,876.100
High end: 0.017 x 3546.165 = 60.285 gallons per passenger x 301 passengers = 18,145.785
 
Taxiing (gallons)
Low end: 150 gallons x 2 (taxi at take off, and at landing) = 300 gallons
High end: 200 gallons x 2 (taxi at take off, and at landing) = 400 gallons
 
Take off (gallons)
Low end: 4000 gallons
High end: 10,000 gallons
 
Total fuel consumed by aircraft (gallons) =
Low end: Flight (13,876.100) + Taxiing (300) + Take off (4000) = 18,176.10
High end: Flight (18,145.785) + Taxiing (400) + Take off (10,000) = 28,545.785
 ​

Deidre Dixon-Golding
Marketing Manager

Over the past 6 years, the Berlin KraftWorks team has been working with manufacturers to help them achieve scaled operations. When Matt Weller and Peter Heuss formed Berlin KraftWorks (BKW), their goal was to make modern manufacturing understandable and accessible, while also working to build a stronger network between local manufacturers here in Waterloo Region. They did this by aligning engineering and supply chain which optimized solutions from initial product design through to delivery to customers.

However, in 2020 things began to change. Our clients were facing continuous supply chain challenges, partly due to the pandemic, and they needed help. We were hearing from more Small and Medium sized Manufacturers (SMEs) who needed help navigating the complexities and risks of modern supply chains. While the pandemic has receded, the need has only continued to grow.

At the same time, Peter Heuss was getting ready to start his retirement. BKW would never be the same without Peter and this was an opportunity for Matt to reassess what our clients needed from us. 

We are pleased to announce that Berlin KraftWorks is now, Naviga Supply Chain. We still believe in a system thinking approach and use that methodology with our clients, however our focus is now on supply chain resiliency.

The Naviga team is made up of supply chain and operations professionals with decades of hands-on experience in manufacturing, giving us insight to the unique supply chain challenges of SME’s here in Canada. We are looking forward to helping our clients prepare for resiliency by building supply chains that are competitive and easier to navigate.

Do you have any questions about Naviga Supply Chain? We’d love to hear from you. Please reach out to Matt Weller via email, mweller@naviga-sc.ca.

This is the 5th and final installment in my series concerned with Creating a Supply Chain from Scratch.

Through the previous 4 installments, I’ve talked about key foundational elements for any supply chain – regardless of the product. The capstone that brings it all together is Supplier Management, and I will describe my own approach in this final article.
Please note, in order to keep this down to a reasonable read, I will speak in general terms. For a detailed explanation of any of these elements, please contact me and I will be happy to expand on specific elements with examples.
 
Supplier Management: The Approved Vendor List Process
The Foundation
I refer to this entire process as the Approved Vendor List (AVL). The AVL is the output, but the underlying processes are required to identify reliable sources of supply and manage a supply base capable of delivering goods and services at the right price, quality, quantity, and date. The core components of the AVL are required to make the list functional. There are four (4) core processes and two foundational components which underlie this (and other processes), without which the ability to manage suppliers is compromised.

Foundation Stones: Material/Service Specifications and Purchase Order Terms and Conditions

​Material / Service Specification
The Bill of Materials (BOM) dictates the materials/service specifications and is part of the design intent. It is the foundation for all supplier management processes, and the last word in what is required in combination with individual material specifications for items in the BOM. To better understand the Material/Service Specifications, please refer to part four of this series. 

Purchase Order Terms and Conditions
Purchase Order Terms and Conditions are critical to any supplier interaction. From the beginning of an interaction, they set the tone of the relationship, define who is responsible for what, establish how quality will be determined and measured, and finally they stipulate how disputes will be resolved. Failure to clearly communicate with the supplier is by far the #1 root cause of poor supplier performance complaints that I have seen over the years. Ultimately, you own responsibility for communication as part of design responsibility, but also as part of your business strategy. It is unwise, and unfair, to rely on suppliers to assume they know what you need.

The Four Core Processes
Non-Disclosure Agreement  
In order to ensure an adequate level of due diligence, a non-disclosure agreement should be signed prior to the exchange of any sensitive information with any party. You will want to find out key things related to your supplier’s capabilities, status, and stability. You will also need to share with them key details about your own operations for context. It is best if this agreement is mutual. Please Note - While NDAs are used globally, they are not necessarily valid in some countries! Do your homework to ensure your confidentiality agreements will be recognized in foreign jurisdictions.

Supplier Self-Survey
In order to have a baseline set of data upon which to evaluate any new supplier, a Supplier Self-Survey should be completed. (Please contact me directly if you would like some examples around how to create a supplier self-survey). I use this survey to reveal summary process capability, financial status, and organizational fit information pertinent to making a reliable determination about a supplier's suitability to provide any product or service. This document should be reviewed in a cross-functional manner with input from Finance, along with any other functional group which is involved in defining the product or service requirement such as Engineering and Customer Service. Don’t overlook Quality personnel, their input is critical. In many situations QA staff will champion this part of the process.

Under no circumstances should this survey be used as a replacement for an initial supplier visit/site audit. It is critically important to see your supplier’s operations firsthand, as this always reveals information you would not otherwise know. Most often, it reveals information that is beneficial to everyone involved as it may uncover previously unknown opportunities. A site visit with a completed self-survey in hand, helps to guide and verify the supplier’s suitability.

New Supplier Approval Process
This is required to validate new sources of supply, and ensure new suppliers can meet the needs of the organization reliably and in a repeatable fashion. This process depends on the Supplier Self-Survey as a data collection framework, as well as the NDA Process as a means to ensure due diligence in sharing sensitive information. You will need to consider how to “try out” this potential new supplier, with a trial, samples, or first-off production. There are various ways this can be done as it depends on many factors, your specific requirements should be considered to determine the best practice here.

If the trials go well, the same group that considered the survey details should reconvene to determine if this supplier should be placed on the AVL. Its best to add a supplier on a conditional basis, such as a set period of time or the successful completion of a set volume of production before they are on the list unconditionally.

Keep in mind that the AVL will be used by Engineers and Designers as the first consideration of available resources as they do their work, and Sourcing professionals will use this list to validate if their needs can be first met within their existing network (best case) or if work must be done to find a new supplier. From an R&D standpoint, it can be a waste to spend days searching for suppliers if the existing supply base is capable to meet the requirements. As such, this list needs to be maintained as a living document. Business decisions will rely on it, and supplier status can change drastically from approved to disqualified in short order. ​

Introduction
The gaming industry is a dynamic landscape of constantly changing and improving technology. When competing digitally, success can hinge on laser focus and split-second reaction time. Brink Bionics wanted to help gamers achieve their best, and have developed the Impulse Neuro-Controller to improve click speed.
​
The Impulse Neuro-Controller is a fingerless glove with sensors that detect the first neural impulse that goes into the finger. This detection then reduces the time between intent to act and execution. Brink Bionics had a 3D-printed proof of concept and were beginning to plan for production when they were introduced to Berlin KraftWorks (BKW). As a new company they were advised to have a design review, and review of their electronics to set themselves up for scalable manufacturing. ​