Mr Hendricks is a Certified Learning Provider (CLP) at Appleton Greene and he has experience in production, management and globalization. He has achieved a Masters of Business Administration, a Bachelor of Business Administration and is Certified in Production and Inventory Management. He has industry experience within the following sectors: Aviation; Aerospace; Automotive; Transport and Logistics. He has had commercial experience within the following countries: United States of America, or more specifically within the following cities: Ann Arbor MI; Detroit MI; Toledo OH; Cleveland OH and Cincinnati OH. His personal achievements include: developed strategy trained associates SAP; facilitated improvement scrap rate; implemented lean manufacturing processes; improved cycle count accuracy and JIT sequencing supplier. His service skills incorporate: SAP implementation; master scheduling; inventory management; work management and performance optimization.
To request further information about Mr. Hendricks through Appleton Greene, please Click Here.
Appleton Greene corporate training programs are all process-driven. They are used as vehicles to implement tangible business processes within clients’ organizations, together with training, support and facilitation during the use of these processes. Corporate training programs are therefore implemented over a sustainable period of time, that is to say, between 1 year (incorporating 12 monthly workshops), and 4 years (incorporating 48 monthly workshops). Your program information guide will specify how long each program takes to complete. Each monthly workshop takes 6 hours to implement and can be undertaken either on the client’s premises, an Appleton Greene serviced office, or online via the internet. This enables clients to implement each part of their business process, before moving onto the next stage of the program and enables employees to plan their study time around their current work commitments. The result is far greater program benefit, over a more sustainable period of time and a significantly improved return on investment.
Appleton Greene uses standard and bespoke corporate training programs as vessels to transfer business process improvement knowledge into the heart of our clients’ organizations. Each individual program focuses upon the implementation of a specific business process, which enables clients to easily quantify their return on investment. There are hundreds of established Appleton Greene corporate training products now available to clients within customer services, e-business, finance, globalization, human resources, information technology, legal, management, marketing and production. It does not matter whether a client’s employees are located within one office, or an unlimited number of international offices, we can still bring them together to learn and implement specific business processes collectively. Our approach to global localization enables us to provide clients with a truly international service with that all important personal touch. Appleton Greene corporate training programs can be provided virtually or locally and they are all unique in that they individually focus upon a specific business function. All (CLP) programs are implemented over a sustainable period of time, usually between 1-4 years, incorporating 12-48 monthly workshops and professional support is consistently provided during this time by qualified learning providers and where appropriate, by Accredited Consultants.
Supply Chain – History
Over the last 100 plus years of the history of supply chain management has evolved from an initial focus on improving relatively simple, but very labor-intensive processes to the present day engineering and managing of extraordinarily complex global networks. Both industrial engineering and operations research have their roots in logistics. Fredrick Taylor, who wrote The Principles of Scientific Management in 1911 and is considered the father of industrial engineering, focused his early research on how to improve manual loading processes. Operations Research began when scientists demonstrated the value of analytics in the study of military logistics problems in the 1940s as a result of the complex requirements of World War II. While Industrial Engineering and Operations Research have each tried to maintain separate identities, many of their biggest successes have occurred when used in an integrated framework to address supply chain and logistics issues. Increasingly this is referred to by industry as “Supply Chain Engineering.” In the 1940s and 1950s, the focus of logistics research was on how to use mechanization (e.g., pallets and pallet lifts) to improve the very labor intensive processes of material handling and how to take better advantage of space using racking and better warehouse design and layout. The “unit load” concept gained popularity and the use of pallets became widespread. In the mid-1950s, this concept was extended to transportation management with the development of intermodal containers together with ships, trains, and trucks to handle these containers. This was a prerequisite for the supply chain globalization that was to come much later. Although the terms “warehousing” and “materials handling” were used to describe many of these efforts, this work could be viewed as fundamental applications of industrial engineering rather than as a discipline of its own.
In 1957, 20 production control managers met on Thursdays and had pizza to discuss Production and Inventory Control. After a few months they formed the American Production and Inventory Control Society. The organization, which later became known as APICS, has since grown to more than 45,000 members and is now a global entity with nearly 300 channel partners that connect with members in over 100 countries. APICS has evolved into a strategic partner to global corporations and individuals at all career levels. APICS education programs ensure employees can be successful even when managing the largest and most complex supply chains.
By the 1960s, a clear trend had developed in shifting more time-dependent freight transportation to truck rather than rail. This led to the need for joint consideration of warehousing, material handling, and freight transportation, which emerged under the label of “Physical Distribution.” The National Council of Physical Distribution Management was formed in 1963 to focus industry attention on this area and quickly became the predominant organization in the field. Academic research and education followed this trend to satisfy the growing industry recognition of the needs in this area. This area gained much wider recognition in both industry and academia due in large part to the fundamental paradigm change that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s with regard to computers. Prior to the 1960s, virtually all transactions and record keeping were done manually. The computerization of this data opened the door to a huge opportunity for innovations in logistics planning, from randomized storage in warehouses to optimization of inventory and truck routing. The technologies, particularly those from Operations Research, that researchers had to this point only been able to examine in theoretical models had now become much closer to reality. However, there were still many difficult research issues to resolve in the transition from theory to practice. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, this led to the creation at Georgia Tech of the Production and Distribution Research Center, the Material Handling Research Center, and the Computational Optimization Center. Each of these centers was focused on a different aspect of what this new computer technology made possible.
The 1980s marked the beginning of a sea-change in logistics in the history of supply chain management. The emergence of personal computers in the early 1980s provided tremendously better computer access to planners and a new graphical environment for planning. This spawned a flood of new technology including flexible spreadsheets and map-based interfaces which enabled huge improvements in logistics planning and execution technology. The Production and Distribution Research Center was the early innovation leader in combining map interfaces with optimization models for supply chain design and distribution planning. The Material Handling Research Center provided leadership in developing new control technology for material handling automation. The Computational Optimization Center developed new large scale optimization algorithms that enabled solution of previously intractable airline scheduling problems. Much of the methodology developed in these centers rapidly began to find its way into commercial technology. Perhaps the most important trend for logistics in the 1980s was that it had begun to get tremendous recognition in industry as being very expensive, very important, and very complex. Company executives became aware of logistics as an area where they had the opportunity to significantly improve the bottom line if they were willing to invest in trained professionals and new technology. In 1985, the National Council of Physical Distribution Management changed its name to the Council of Logistics Management (CLM). The reason given for the name change by the new CLM was “to reflect the evolving discipline that included the integration of inbound, outbound and reverse flows of products, services, and related information.” Prior to this, logistics was a term that had been used almost exclusively to describe the support of military movements.
The logistics boom was fuelled further in the 1990s by the emergence of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. These systems were motivated in part by the successes achieved by Material Requirements Planning systems developed in the 1970s and 1980s, in part by the desire to integrate the multiple databases that existed in almost all companies and seldom talked to each other, and in part by concerns that existing systems might have catastrophic failures as a result of not being able to handle the year 2000 date. In spite of some significant problems in getting the ERP systems installed and working, by 2000 most large companies had installed ERP systems. The result of this change to ERP systems was a tremendous improvement in data availability and accuracy. The new ERP software also dramatically increased recognition of the need for better planning and integration among logistics components. The result was a new generation of “Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS)” software.
In early 2019, the Association for Supply Chain Management (ASCM) Learning & Development was launched. ASCM aims to provide the industry-leading APICS certifications. They are also expanding to deliver end-to-end professional development and education offerings through their global network of thought leadership partnerships and alliances. Their newly created Supply Chain Learning Center will offer online and on-demand learning opportunities for members and customers. Fostering the advancement of end-to-end supply chain management through a body of knowledge, innovative research, systems, and methods to create value for customers, members and organizations. Fast Facts: 45,000 professional members in 100 countries; 190 APICS chapters in North America; 100 international channel partners in 46 countries; 125,000 certified professionals.
Supply Chain – Current Position
The widespread recognition of the term “supply chain” has come primarily as a result of the globalization of manufacturing since the mid-1990s, particularly the growth of manufacturing in China. U.S. imports from China grew from about $45 billion per year in 1995 to more than $280 billion per year in 2006. The focus on globalization accented the need for logistics strategies to deal with complex networks including multiple entities spanning multiple countries with diverse control. There has been an increasing trend to use the term supply chain management to refer to strategic issues and logistics to refer to tactical and operational issues. This growing association of supply chain management with strategy is reflected in the Council of Logistics Management’s changing its name to the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals in 2005. They make the distinction that “Logistics is that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and controls the efficient, effective forward and reverse flow and storage of goods, services, and related information between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet customers’ requirements” while “Supply Chain Management is the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the tactics across these business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain for the purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a whole.” Since the 1980s, computer technology has advanced at such a phenomenal rate that it is currently far ahead of the ability of the supply and logistics field to adequately utilize the new technologies. Given the extent of Internet usage today, it is hard to believe that Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 1.0 was released in 1995. The communication capabilities have fundamentally changed the way we think about communications and information sharing. However, supply chain and logistics planning is still primarily based on the distributed models that came as the result of personal computers. There is no question that academic research can enable a new generation of supply chain and logistics planning technology based on centralized planning with distributed collaboration. These technology advances can provide tremendous value in addressing traditional supply chain and logistics areas such as warehousing and distribution, transportation, and manufacturing logistics. However, there are also many non-traditional areas such as health care logistics and humanitarian logistics which can get great value from building on the concepts and technologies that have already proven successful in the traditional supply chain and logistics areas. Finally, there are extremely valuable insights to be gained by systematically studying the supply chain and logistics performance of companies across multiple industries and countries.
Supply Chain – Future Outlook
When it comes to predicting the future, we’ve all heard the sayings that no one has a crystal ball and that the only certainties are death and taxes. In supply chain management, we like to say that the only thing certain about a forecast is that it is always wrong. While researchers like those of us at CAPS Research may not be able to predict the future, we do know that it does not exist in isolation: It depends on the past and the present. This means that if we could compile the collective projections of managers who are well informed about the past and present, we might be able to gain a glimpse into what is to come. Or, at the least, what the collective wisdom expects to occur. That was the catalyst behind a project CAPS Research initiated in 2015 (Futures Study 2020: Overview PDF). They asked more than 400 supply management professionals with titles such as vice president of supply management and senior procurement manager to look ahead five years into the future to 2020 and tell us what they think might happen. They distributed a lengthy questionnaire that typically took about 30 minutes to complete and we received back 113 responses. There were no incentives other than the opportunity to advance the body of knowledge in the profession. In order to consider both the past and the present, the 2015 survey built upon the last “futures” survey CAPS Research administered in 2007. While some items were updated to reflect today’s business environment, most of the items remained the same. The preliminary framework recognizes that external forces of change drive corporate-level business strategies while supply missions are shaped by business strategies. Specific supply strategies are influenced by forces of change, business strategies and supply missions. Based on this framework, the survey explored the following four areas: (1) external forces of change, (2) business strategy, (3) supply mission and (4) supply strategy. It could be that supply professionals perceive that this external driver is moving them, comparatively speaking, away from an upstream focus on their supply base and more toward downstream concerns in the customer base. Corroborating this observation is (1) that a key upstream concern from 2007 – i.e., “spot shortages of key raw materials” – is no longer listed in the top five forces in 2015 and (2) that “changing oil and raw materials prices” dropped from first position in 2007 to fourth in 2015. In other words, supply managers are telling us that in coming years they will have to contend more with what’s happening with their downstream customers. Interestingly, “government regulatory changes” still remains the second most important force of change. We suspect the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank acts may still be looming large, as well as the U.S. government’s cyber security mandate. In relation to this, an “increase emphasis on supply chain security” also appears for the first time in the top five in 2015. Another important change is “technology advancements in the supply base,” which is listed as the third most important force of change. Technology advancements in 3-D printing and real-time IT tools may be weighing heavily on the minds of supply professionals.
Business strategies represent the long-term goals and action plans of an organization’s top-management in response to external forces of change. Supply professionals see that their organization’s business strategies are becoming more customer-oriented, reflecting the shift in the forces of change toward meeting downstream customer requirements. Newly listed in the top five business strategies, the goal to “realize synergies across divisions/SBUs,” may reflect the widely-held sentiment that supply professionals are being asked to do more with less: They must not only continue to handle upstream and internal cost issues, but now they are also responsible for downstream service quality and internal integration issues. Nonetheless, this condition may also highlight a potential opportunity for supply professionals: Because they play a boundary-spanning role across the organization, supply professionals are perhaps best qualified to play key roles in integrating different divisions and strategic business units within their organizations. Data clearly suggest their expanding roles within their organizations. Supply mission focuses on the future direction of the supply management function. We expected supply missions to fully reflect the ongoing environmental and organizational changes. What we see instead is a disconnect between supply missions and the changes in external forces and business strategies from 2007 to 2015. While forces of change and business strategies are increasingly concerned about the downstream requirements of customers, supply missions still largely focus on the traditional upstream activities associated with suppliers.
Supply Chain – Part 1- Year 1
- Part 1 Month 1 Internal Analysis
- Part 1 Month 2 Global Supply-Chain Trends
- Part 1 Month 3 Supply-Chain Sustainability
- Part 1 Month 4 Developing Countries
- Part 1 Month 5 Process Integration
- Part 1 Month 6 Manufacturing
- Part 1 Month 7 Execution
- Part 1 Month 8 Supply & Demand
- Part 1 Month 9 Monitoring
- Part 1 Month 10 Competitive Infrastructure
- Part 1 Month 11 Worldwide Logistics
- Part 1 Month 12 Performance Measurement
The following list represents the Key Program Objectives (KPO) for the Appleton Greene Supply Chain corporate training program.
Supply Chain – Part 1- Year 1
- Part 1 Month 1 Internal Analysis – The first stage of the program is to understand the history, current position and future outlook relating to supply chain process improvement, not just for the organization as a whole, but for each individual department, including: customer service; e-business; finance; globalization; human resources; information technology; distribution; management; logistics and production. This will be achieved by implementing a process within each department, enabling the head of that department to conduct a detailed and thorough internal analysis to establish the internal strengths and weaknesses and the external opportunities and threats in relation to supply chain process improvement and to establish a MOST analysis: Mission; Objectives; Strategies; Tasks, enabling them to be more proactive about the way in which they plan, develop, implement, manage and review supply chain process improvement, within their department.
- Part 1 Month 2 Global Supply-Chain Trends – It is vital that an organization considers the major global supply chain trends and determines how it will address each of them as part of their integrated global supply chain strategy. Some of the current trends we would suggest an organization needs to research and evaluate include: E2E Collaboration, Lean Six Sigma, Management of Complexity, Physical Network Optimization Methods, Risks & Opportunities of Globalization, Focus on Cost & Working Capital and maybe the Impact of Sustainability if this is an internal or external requirement.
- Part 1 Month 3 Supply-Chain Sustainability – This workshop features a practical guide to continuous improvement, and can help companies to overcome challenges by offering practical guidance on how to develop a sustainable global supply chain process, based on the values and principles of the Global Compact. Featuring numerous examples of good corporate practice, the guide will assist companies in setting priorities for action that will lead to continuous supply chain performance improvement.
- Part 1 Month 4 Developing Countries – Over the last three decades, global supply chains (GSCs) have increasingly gained importance in linking developing countries to international markets. Today a substantial share of the production processes of GSCs is taking place in developing countries. For developing countries and their enterprises, GSCs offer opportunities as well as challenges. While greatly facilitating access to developed countries’ markets, GSCs also demand greater efficiency and competence from suppliers. For developing countries, it is thus important to implement economic policies that while increasing the competitiveness of their enterprises, also improve their reliability and efficiency.
- Part 1 Month 5 Process Integration – Integrating a supply chain is an incremental process, with priority typically given to the highest potential returns on investment. Based on strategies, needs, and potential returns, different priorities and approaches may be assigned to the supply chains of different segments of a business.
- Part 1 Month 6 Manufacturing – Process improvement or Kaizen as the Japanese refer to it, is the continual improvement of efficiency, performance, competitive advantage and utilization of plant, equipment, labor, knowledge, planning, inventory, production processes and tasks by drawing on knowledge resources within the business and the use of lean manufacturing principles and operations management concepts to continually improve the value stream and its components. Process improvement theory and problem solving framework is based on the use of the PDCA cycle (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycle which was advocated by Dr W Deming, the American quality guru. Process improvement is a continual process, which should involve everyone at all levels of the organization to become an inherent component of company culture.
- Part 1 Month 7 Execution – As supply chains become increasingly global and more complex, consumers become increasingly demanding, and markets become more and more competitive. All of these developments call for smarter, more efficient supply chains. One turnkey approach is supply chain execution convergence (SCEC), a concept first named by Gartner in 2009 but just beginning to pick up the momentum needed to revolutionize supply chains worldwide.
- Part 1 Month 8 Supply & Demand – A perennial problem, which management thinker, Peter Drucker, labelled one of the ‘great divides’ in management more than 40 years ago, is the disconnect between supply and demand. This divide is a key reason why companies are so often trapped into selling excess products well below market rates or lose sales because an inventory shortage makes it impossible to fulfil demand. Bringing the supply and demand sides of an enterprise together can represent a significant opportunity for efficiency and value creation.
- Part 1 Month 9 Monitoring – Knowledge is power. The key is to ensure your data is comprehensive and up to date. If you have an effective data monitoring process, you are part way to having a successful supply chain management process. This data should incorporate everything from performance figures to supplier information. For example, make sure all your supplier contracts are reviewed on a regular basis to account for changes in regulation.
- Part 1 Month 10 Competitive Infrastructure – Because of its importance in maintaining and improving economic competitiveness, transportation infrastructure has become a frequent subject of discussion around the world. In the United States, for instance, those discussions reflect concerns about whether the country has the necessary infrastructure to compete with expanding economies like China and India. Similarly, it is just as important to ensure that your company, has an infrastructure in place that enables you to provide a better service than your competitors. We aim to implement a process that ensures that you do.
- Part 1 Month 11 Worldwide Logistics – Organizations adopt numerous business improvement methodologies to improve business performance. Logistics as well as supply chain management has been regarded to be the crucial factor for the companies to obtain competitive edge. In fact, logistics as well as supply chain management has received attention since the early 1980s, yet conceptually the management of supply chains is not particularly well understood, and many clients have highlighted the necessity of clear definition constructs and conceptual frameworks on supply chain management.
- Part 1 Month 12 Performance Measurement – The process of choosing appropriate supply chain performance measures is difficult due to the complexity of these systems. This workshop presents an overview and evaluation of the performance measures used in supply chain models and also presents a framework for the selection of performance measurement systems for manufacturing supply chains.
Supply Chain – Continuous Process Improvement (CPI)
The need to adapt quickly is one of the biggest challenges businesses face. What worked last year, even last month, may need to be tweaked or overhauled to meet current demands. The stakes are often great – that flexibility could be the difference between a company thriving and closing for good. Today’s ultra-competitive market is one in which only the fittest survive. Remaining stagnant is more dangerous now than ever before. So how can your company set itself up for success under those ever-changing constraints? Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) is a strategy that’s produced impressive results when implemented in supply chain. The name reveals the basic idea behind CPI: consistently implementing improvements that will set you up for long-term prosperity. It makes perfect sense, yet the importance of such an approach is too frequently overlooked. It’s based on three key entities: people, processes and technology. All three must work in unison for CPI to be effective. Once those are in place, a company can start to take advantage of this approach. There are a number of benefits that come with adopting CPI. It all starts with improved efficiency, which in turn leads to more revenue and profit, reduced expenses, a more proactive workforce and better company culture. This simple strategy has a lasting positive impact. The way your warehouse technology is built will determine how quickly and easily your business can clear all of these hurdles. Put simply, companies are limited by the technology they use. It’s critical to have software in place that allows the business to work toward a brighter future each and every day. eCommerce has left customers with much higher expectations, and companies must find a way to accommodate them. Your company could see immediate results by selecting a WMS that supports CPI. It requires an agile system ready to adapt to your needs without constant help from the technology provider. As the market changes, so must your warehouse software. That’s why an innovative product is a necessity. The gap between your company and a competitor may be shrinking. Even if that’s not the case just yet, it probably will be soon. The only way to keep up is to be ready to adjust to the times as necessary.
In almost every industry, the marketplace is becoming more competitive and demanding. There is more pressure than ever before to do more for less. That climate should encourage executives to closely examine every aspect of their supply chain. A recent study showed companies with a group dedicated to supply chain optimization were almost twice as likely to reach their revenue and margin goals compared to those without such a focus. That examination should be guided by the fundamentals of continuous process improvement (CPI), which describes an ongoing process to strengthen any aspect of your daily operations. It’s a strategy proven to lead to greater efficiency and profitability, from supply chain planning through execution. CPI impacts three main aspects of a supply chain: people, processes and technology. First, employees must be in a position that takes complete advantage of their individual skillsets and strengths. Second, an organization must identify the best path(s) to reach its goals. Finally, the business must employ the latest technological solutions to boost efficiency and flex to customer demand, all without increasing expense.
Supply Chain – A Four Step Process
CPI is not something with only theoretical appeal. Companies that institute it see real, lasting results. That includes bigger top and bottom lines, and a self-driven workforce that drives productivity and brings positive cultural change. There are four basic steps: identify, plan, execute and review. It starts with identifying the processes that are hurting the bottom line or preventing new business. Speak with all stakeholders, from workers on the floor to the operations team to the IT staff. Brainstorm ideas. Visibility and communication is key—everyone must be aware of what changes are coming, why and who is leading each initiative. Then, build a plan prioritizing the tasks that provide a clear return on investment. A cause-and-effect matrix may help you find the most pressing areas of improvement for your organization (speed to value, regulatory compliance, employee morale, etc.). The third step is execution. Not surprisingly, this is the most difficult part of implementing CPI. You know what needs to change, but making that happen can be an immense challenge. This should be a bump in the road (rather than a roadblock) if you strike the right balance between priorities and available resources. Choose the systems development lifecycle that works best for you. Think about how much training is involved. Consider the details of deployment. Plan for success. For example, you may first deploy these changes at distribution centers near your support staff. Finally, review the effects of the change. This may be a relatively simple process for small- and mid-sized companies, while enterprise-level businesses may need a more formal procedure. It’s critical to collect feedback from the people on the floor who use the processes and technologies every day. Their input should guide your next CPI cycle.
Supply Chain – Technology
The frequent change inherent in successful CPI requires technology built with flexibility in mind. Turning ideas into reality requires solutions that are process-based, with the ability to flex to the business need. A key piece of technology when improving your supply chain execution is the warehouse management system (WMS)—the backbone of your operations. No two organizations operate their fulfillment operations exactly the same. Your WMS should be built around the unique needs of your supply chain. That differentiation can be a competitive advantage. When reviewing your WMS options, do not focus solely on the present. You need to examine the future as well. What issues may arise down the road? The capabilities you need from your WMS today could change dramatically six months after the go-live date (new selling channels, new regulatory compliance, new customer expectations, etc.). Making those adjustments can be expensive if you do not select the right solution. To facilitate CPI and flexibility, your WMS should: Be capable out of the box; Have a proven implementation process; Be well-documented—including changes as they happen; Be process-driven (software flexible to your business practices) rather than flag-driven (software determines business practices); Support constant improvements in a cost-effective manner.
This service is primarily available to the following industry sectors:
Consumers will see a substantial increase in the value they derive from air transport in 2019. The average return fare (before surcharges and tax) of $317 in 2019 is forecast to be 61% lower than in 1998, after adjusting for inflation. The number of new destinations is forecast to rise further this year, with frequencies up too; both boosting consumer benefits. We expect 1% of world GDP to be spent on air transport in 2019, totaling $899 billion. RPK growth, which has been running well above trend, is forecast to slow further as economic growth weakens and fuel prices rise. But the major new weakness in the business environment is world trade, as a result of the trade disputes. GDP growth has slowed but by much less than trade, as domestic demand remains strong. Economic development worldwide is getting a significant boost from air transport. This wider economic benefit is being generated by increasing connections between cities – enabling the flow of goods, people, capital, technology and ideas – and falling air transport costs. The number of unique city-pair connections has exceeded 22,000 this year, more than double the connectivity by air twenty years ago. The price of air transport for users continues to fall, after adjusting for inflation. Compared to twenty years ago real transport costs have more than halved. Air transport is vital for manufactures trade, particularly trade in components which is a major part of cross border trade today. We forecast that the value of international trade shipped by air next year will be $6.7 trillion. Tourists travelling by air in 2019 are forecast to spend $909 billion. Another impact on the wider economy comes through the influence increased airline activity has on jobs in the sector, in its supply chain, and the jobs generated as spending ripples through the economy. These ‘supply chain’ jobs around the world are estimated to rise to more than 70 million in 2019. Governments have also gained from the good performance of the airline industry. Airlines and their customers are forecast to generate $129 billion in tax revenues this year. That’s the equivalent of 45% of the industry’s GVA (Gross Value Added, which is the firm-level equivalent to GDP). But in many countries the value that aviation generates is not well understood. The commercial activities of the industry remain highly constrained by bilateral and other regulations. Moreover, regulation is far from ‘smart’, leading to unnecessarily high costs. Visa requirements discourage inbound tourism and business travel. Encouragingly visa openness levels are improving. But the number of individual ticket taxes has risen to 237, while the level of many existing taxes continues to ratchet upwards.
In 2018, the global aerospace and defense (A&D) industry recuperated and experienced a solid year as passenger travel demand strengthened and global military expenditure continued to rise. The industry is expected to continue its growth trajectory in 2019, led by growing commercial aircraft production and strong defense spending. This outlook reviews the performance of the A&D industry in 2018 and forecasts its growth in the coming years. It also outlines performance across major A&D markets and discusses trends that will impact the industry. Key findings: The commercial aircraft order backlog is at its peak of more than 14,000 with about 38,000 aircraft expected to be produced globally over the next 20 years; Geopolitical tensions are continuing to intensify and demand for military equipment is on the uptick, driving defense spending across the globe; Changes in the international trade agreements likely to disrupt the global supply chain and increase costs; M&A activity to remain strong as pressure on suppliers to reduce costs and increase production rates continues; Though A&D industry growth is primarily led by the United States, few other regions including China, France, India, Japan, the Middle East, and the UK, will be contributing to the industry’s performance in the near term. In 2014 the global aerospace manufacturing market is expected to maintain the overall 5% growth rate that has been seen in 2012 and 2013. The growth will be driven by the continued expansion of the civil aviation sector while the military sector is expected to continue its contraction. Boeing forecast a long-term demand in global civil aviation for 35,280 new aeroplanes between 2013 and 2032, valued at $4.8 trillion. 14,350 of these new aeroplanes will replace older, less efficient aeroplanes. The remaining 20,930 aeroplanes will be for fleet growth, stimulating expansion in emerging markets and innovative airline business models. Approximately 24,670 aeroplanes (70 percent of new deliveries) will be single-aisle aeroplanes, reflecting growth in emerging markets such as China, and the continued expansion of low-cost carriers throughout the world. Wide body share will also increase, from 23 percent of today’s fleet to 24 percent in 2032. With these growth rates there is a possibility that a new major manufacturer may enter the civil aviation market based in one of the emerging economies. The anticipated rate of expansion in civil aviation will pose significant challenges for the supply chain across the global economy. In 2014 the recent rate of revenue contraction for defense contractors of around 2% p.a. may well be sustained. European defense equipment manufacturers face particular problems – McKinsey has estimated that European governments could save over 30% by joint procurement of equipment and services. Defense programs have become extraordinarily expensive and affordability has become a major issue. Next generation technologies must be developed and maintained in service at a much lower cost than hitherto. According to Deloittes, the UK industry has utilized two major business model innovations to help fund new requirements in this challenging environment – public private financing initiatives and performance based logistics – which are making acquisitions more affordable. Some defense companies have also been anticipating defense budget cuts by reducing staff, cutting overhead costs, and getting lean. Automation is being used to reduce labor costs. Digital product development and computer aided design are creating significant efficiencies in product development. Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma have cut waste in the production process. Such initiatives will almost certainly accelerate in 2014 as companies in the defense sector seek to maintain margins and profitability.
The automotive industry is America’s largest exporter. Over the past six years, automakers and suppliers have exported over $775 billion worth of vehicles and parts. They beat the next best performing sector (aerospace) by $125 billion. Last year alone, automakers and suppliers out-exported the aerospace industry by $6 billion. The U.S. auto industry is one of the largest consumers of domestic raw materials and parts. Last year, automakers sold more than 17 million cars in the U.S., and each contained between 8,000 to 12,000 parts, using more than 3,000 pounds of iron, steel, rubber, glass and semiconductors. Approximately 734,000 Americans work at the plants, offices and research labs that produce those parts and materials. Designing those 8,000 to 12,000 auto parts and helping put them together makes autos among the most engineering-intensive industries in the world. In fact, seven out of the world’s top 25 corporate investors in research and development are automakers. FCA US, Ford and General Motors each invest more each year on research and development than HP, Boeing, and AT&T – and 80 cents of every dollar they invest in research and development is spent here in the U.S. Thanks largely to this investment, nearly one in 10 engineers and scientists in private sector R&D work for an automaker or auto supplier. Global sales of passenger cars are forecast to hit 78.6 million vehicles in 2017. Along with China, the United States is counted among the largest automobile markets worldwide, both in terms of production and sales. About 6.9 million passenger cars were sold to U.S. customers in 2016, and around four million cars were produced here in the same year. The United States became a key automotive market in the early 1900s, when Ford introduced assembly line car production to mass-manufacture its Model T. Today, the Ford Motor Company still ranks among the leading manufacturers of passenger cars, its most popular passenger car model currently being the Ford Focus, which was also one of 2016’s best-selling light vehicles worldwide. In terms of revenue, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Daimler topped the list of major automobile makers in 2016, while the automotive supplier industry was dominated by Bosch, Continental, Denso and Magna. Prompted by global initiatives, such as the Paris Agreement, several countries around the globe are enacting stricter emissions controls on new vehicle models. As such, automakers are beginning to expand their business into the electric mobility sector. Germany is expected to lead the way with projected electric car production to reach some 1.3 million units by 2021. Over the next decade, Internet-connected car technologies and autonomous vehicles are set to stir up yet another revolution in the automotive sector. In 2016, some 40 percent of U.S. respondents stated that they were willing to use fully autonomous vehicles, presumably because they consider autonomous vehicles to be safer than conventional cars. The global market for autonomous driving hardware components is expected to grow from 400 million U.S. dollars in 2015 to 40 billion U.S. dollars in 2030.
The logistics and transportation industry in the United States is highly competitive. By investing in this sector, multinational firms position themselves to better facilitate the flow of goods throughout the world’s largest consumer market. International and domestic companies in this industry benefit from a highly skilled workforce and relatively low costs. United States Business Logistics Costs reached $1.6 trillion in 2018 (8 percent of GDP that year). Analysts expect investment to correlate with sector-specific growth in the U.S. economy. America’s highly integrated supply chain network links producers and consumers through multiple transportation modes, including air and express delivery services, freight rail, maritime transport, and truck transport. To serve customers efficiently, multinational and domestic firms provide tailored logistics and transportation solutions to ensure coordinated goods movement from origin to end user through each supply chain network segment. Logistics services: This subsector includes inbound and outbound transportation management, fleet management, warehousing, materials handling, order fulfillment, logistics network design, inventory management, supply and demand planning, third-party logistics management, and other support services. Logistics services are involved at all levels in the planning and execution of the movement of goods. Air and express delivery services (EDS): Firms offer expedited, time-sensitive, and end-to-end services for documents, small parcels, and high-value items. An $87 billion industry in the United States, EDS firms also provide the export infrastructure for many exporters, particularly small and medium-sized businesses that cannot afford to operate their own supply chain. Recent EDS industry growth has been generated by the expansion of electronic commerce use by businesses and consumers. Freight rail: High volumes of heavy cargo and products are transported long distances throughout the United States via rail network. Each day, this 140,000-mile system delivers an average of 5 million tons of goods and serves nearly every industrial, wholesale, retail, and resource-based sector of the economy. In 2017, Freight rail moves more than 70 percent of the nation’s coal, about 58 percent of its raw metal ores, 1.6 million carloads of wheat, corn, and other agricultural products, and 13.7 million intermodal containers and trailers that transport consumer goods. Maritime: This subsector includes carriers, seaports, terminals, and labor involved in the movement of cargo and passengers by water. Water transportation moves nearly 70 percent of all U.S. international merchandise trade, including 72 percent of U.S. exports by tonnage. Trucking: Over-the-road transportation of cargo is provided by motor vehicles over short and medium distances. According to the American Trucking Associations, trucking revenues were $700 billion in 2017. That year, trucks moved almost 11 billion tons of freight.
Global logistics is expected to reach US$12 trillion in value by 2025, recording a 6% CAGR over the period. The key opportunities lie in construction industry and transportation of cement, metals, textiles and electronic components. Retail and wholesale, in the meantime, will become an increasingly challenging area with limited potential and growing supply chain complexity. 2015 was a difficult year for global logistics companies. However, accelerating Asia Pacific economies and recovering manufacturing in Western Europe are expected to have a positive effect on global logistics, which started to recover in 2016 and is expected to continue solid growth in the next 10 years. Retail and wholesale growth is expected to stand at 4% CAGR over 2015-2025 -lowest among key logistics customers. China and the US are expected to remain lucrative markets that will account for over 50% of future value growth in retail and wholesale until 2025. Following growth of e-commerce, logistics companies will have to adopt innovative delivery solutions and integrate delivery systems. The most significant elements that enable us to understand economic growth and development levels of nations are economic indicators of the country of interest. As much as these indicators have positive and high values, they affect the economic, social, psychological and cultural texture of the nation positively. These effects increase the culture, living and welfare levels of the individuals in the society. Logistics is one of the tools that play an important role in the change and improvement of economic indicators. Logistics industry provides significant macro contributions to national economy by creating employment, and creating national income and foreign investment influx. On the micro scale, logistics industry is a key industry in increasing the competitive power of corporations. Furthermore, the logistics industry has an important mission in revitalizing and improvement of the competitiveness of other industries. Today, all industries are dependent on logistics sector. The present study aimed to investigate how the logistics variables of transportation and communication affected economic growth in 34 OECD countries. The effect of both transportation industry variables and communication industry variables that form the logistics industry on the increase in per capita income in OECD countries was identified.
This service is primarily available within the following locations:
Ann Arbor MI
In 2017, Ann Arbor, MI had a population of 119k people with a median age of 27.5 and a median household income of $61,247. Between 2016 and 2017 the population of Ann Arbor, MI grew from 118,087 to 119,303, a 1.03% increase and its median household income grew from $57,697 to $61,247, a 6.15% increase. The population of Ann Arbor, MI is 68.6% White Alone, 15.9% Asian Alone, and 6.89% Black or African American Alone. 21.9% of the people in Ann Arbor, MI speak a non-English language, and 88.4% are U.S. citizens. The largest universities in Ann Arbor, MI are University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (14,000 degrees awarded in 2016) and Concordia University-Ann Arbor (111 degrees). The median property value in Ann Arbor, MI is $271,600, and the homeownership rate is 45.9%. Most people in Ann Arbor, MI commute by Drove Alone, and the average commute time is 18.9 minutes. The average car ownership in Ann Arbor, MI is 2 cars per household. The economy of Ann Arbor, MI employs 61.4k people. The largest industries in Ann Arbor, MI are Educational Services (20,095 people), Health Care & Social Assistance (9,377 people), and Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services (6,416 people), and the highest paying industries are Utilities ($78,958), Manufacturing ($67,681), and Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction ($61,008). Median household income in Ann Arbor, MI is $61,247. Males in Ann Arbor, MI have an average income that is 1.37 times higher than the average income of females, which is $46,762. The income inequality in Ann Arbor, MI (measured using the Gini index) is 0.476, which is lower than the national average. Households in Ann Arbor, MI have a median annual income of $61,247, which is more than the median annual income of $60,336 across the entire United States. This is in comparison to a median income of $57,697 in 2016, which represents a 6.15% annual growth. Michigan (and the nation) is now enjoying the longest economic recovery in more than a century. Yet several factors are emerging that could leave the state more vulnerable to the next downturn, from transformations in the automotive industry that are costing some manufacturing jobs, to ongoing talent challenges, to international trade skirmishes Michigan has limited power to control. The ongoing national expansion surpasses the previous record, from March 1991 to March 2001, and economists say it isn’t expected to end anytime soon. Put simply, a growing economy doesn’t die just because it’s old. While economists don’t forecast a recession is imminent, they caution that Michigan’s economy remains tied to the cyclical fate of the auto industry, even if the state is less reliant on manufacturing than it used to be. American consumers are buying fewer new cars as the industry restructures toward more electric and self-driving vehicles — a transformation that has led to layoffs even amid near-record low unemployment rates. As home base to Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, Michigan also is more likely than other states to be harmed by escalating global trade disputes because the auto industry is a global business. Uncertainty surrounding federal trade policy, more than any other factor, is emerging as a cautionary sign tempering economists’ otherwise optimistic forecasts.
After decades of demographic and economic decline, culminating in America’s largest municipal bankruptcy in 2013, many observers were ready to proclaim that the city of Detroit was dead. But over the past several years, following successful resolution of the bankruptcy and the emergence of new municipal leadership, views have changed. Now academics and the popular press are documenting Detroit’s recovery and resilience. But does this positive image of Detroit reflect reality? Will the recovery culminate in a new Detroit that will provide all residents with a quality of life that is sustainable in the decades to come? These rosy descriptions were not consistent with the reality of what we continued to see in many Detroit neighborhoods. To provide perspective on Detroit’s comeback story, we examined trends in a variety of indicators including population, poverty, income disparities, business recovery, unemployment, residential sales prices and vacancies, and crime. Two major conclusions emerged from our data. First, by a number of measures Detroit continues to decline, and even when positive change has occurred, growth has been much less robust than many narratives would suggest. Second, within the city recovery has been highly uneven, resulting in increasing inequality. Overall, citywide data suggest Detroit is continuing to experience decline that makes it worse off than it was in 2000 or even 2010 in the depths of the national recession. Population, employment and incomes continue to decrease, while vacancies and poverty have increased. Real progress has occurred in recent years in the Downtown/Midtown core, which runs along Woodward Avenue for almost four miles and covers an area of just over seven square miles. In addition to corporate and government offices, it includes the Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, sports and entertainment venues, and the city’s major cultural institutions. Recent developments include restaurants, specialty retail and multifamily housing. Downtown/Midtown covers only 5 percent of Detroit’s 140 square miles, and its population of 26,000 is a tiny fraction of the 3.6 million residents of the metro area, 80 percent of whom live in the suburbs. Improvements in Downtown/Midtown have been insufficient to offset continued citywide negative trends. Less than half a mile from the GM Renaissance Center, the most visible marker of Detroit’s downtown (motto: “Reflecting a new Detroit”), empty lots, weeds and dilapidated buildings prevail. The Hudson-Webber Foundation’s 7.2 Square Miles report highlights the concentration of positive activities in the Downtown and Midtown areas of the city. Although home values in Midtown have increased by 5 percent since 2008, this has not been sufficient to offset continued weakness in other neighborhood housing markets.
In 2017, Detroit, MI had a population of 673k people with a median age of 34.6 and a median household income of $30,344. Between 2016 and 2017 the population of Detroit, MI grew from 672,829 to 673,103, a 0.0407% increase and its median household income grew from $28,099 to $30,344, a 7.99% increase. The population of Detroit, MI is 78.7% Black or African American Alone, 10.5% White Alone, and 7.18% Hispanic or Latino. N/A% of the people in Detroit, MI speak a non-English language, and 96.4% are U.S. citizens. The largest universities in Detroit, MI are Wayne State University (6,162 degrees awarded in 2016), Wayne County Community College District (2,202 degrees), and University of Detroit Mercy (1,558 degrees). The median property value in Detroit, MI is $50,200, and the homeownership rate is 46.9%. Most people in Detroit, MI commute by Drove Alone, and the average commute time is 24.3 minutes. The average car ownership in Detroit, MI is 1 car per household. The economy of Detroit, MI employs 234k people. The largest industries in Detroit, MI are Health Care & Social Assistance (39,064 people), Manufacturing (37,262 people), and Accommodation & Food Services (25,078 people), and the highest paying industries are Public Administration ($49,307), Utilities ($48,215), and Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services ($41,518). Median household income in Detroit, MI is $30,344. Males in Detroit, MI have an average income that is 1.38 times higher than the average income of females, which is $48,042. The income inequality in Detroit, MI (measured using the Gini index) is 0.473, which is lower than than the national average. Households in Detroit, MI have a median annual income of $30,344, which is less than the median annual income of $60,336 across the entire United States. This is in comparison to a median income of $28,099 in 2016, which represents a 7.99% annual growth.
The economic situation in the Toledo metro area has gradually improved. The unemployment rate dropped 0.9 percentage points in the 12 months that ended with August 2018, and gains in manufacturing employment are helping to fill the gap left by the closure of the Jeep Cherokee plant. Home price growth has slowed but remains strong, and residential building permit issuance continues to increase. Households’ financial situations are holding steady, as measured by the credit card delinquency rate and consumer debt per capita. Though the metro area suffers from a declining population and little change to aggregate measures such as personal income per capita and GDP per capita, the economy appears to be firming up. After rising earlier in the year, the unemployment rate in the Toledo metro area stabilized at 4.9 percent in August 2018; this is almost a full percentage point (0.9 percentage points) lower than it was in August 2017. The size of the labor force declined in all but one month of 2018. This situation can cause the unemployment rate to rise if the number of unemployed people stays the same because the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed workers divided by the size of the labor force. It is encouraging that the metro area has continued to see year-over-year unemployment rate declines despite a declining number of workers in the labor force. In Ohio and the United States, the unemployment rate has been declining, but the downward trend seems to be slowing as the economy approaches full employment. Ohio’s unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in August 2018, and that of the United States was 3.9 percent. The Toledo metro area’s real GDP per capita has been largely flat since 2015, with only small fluctuations in both population and real GDP. At $57,060, the metro area’s GDP per capita is slightly higher than the state’s ($56,918), but, in percentage terms, the metro area’s output per person has not grown as much as the state’s average has since 2007. This shows that the metro area remains highly productive, but its productivity has not grown in recent years. Most likely, the metro area’s slow productivity growth is due to the fact that manufacturing continues to be a large share of the metro area’s output and, nationally, manufacturing productivity has been fairly stagnant since 2010. Since before the recession, the metro area’s GDP per capita has grown 7.1 percent, the state’s GDP per capita has grown 9.9 percent, and the nation’s GDP per capita has grown 4.7 percent.
In 2017, Cleveland, OH had a population of 386k people with a median age of 36.2 and a median household income of $28,974. Between 2016 and 2017 the population of Cleveland, OH declined from 385,810 to 385,552, a -0.0669% decrease and its median household income grew from $27,551 to $28,974, a 5.16% increase. The population of Cleveland, OH is 48.3% Black or African American Alone, 32.9% White Alone, and 12.4% Hispanic or Latino. N/A% of the people in Cleveland, OH speak a non-English language, and 96.9% are U.S. citizens. The largest universities in Cleveland, OH are Cleveland State University (4,053 degrees awarded in 2016), Cuyahoga Community College District (3,796 degrees), and Case Western Reserve University (3,402 degrees). The median property value in Cleveland, OH is $70,200, and the homeownership rate is 40.4%. Most people in Cleveland, OH commute by Drove Alone, and the average commute time is 22.5 minutes. The average car ownership in Cleveland, OH is 1 car per household. The economy of Cleveland, OH employs 159k people. The largest industries in Cleveland, OH are Health Care & Social Assistance (32,149 people), Manufacturing (20,186 people), and Retail Trade (16,609 people), and the highest paying industries are Management of Companies & Enterprises ($49,538), Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services ($48,543), and Public Administration ($46,311). Median household income in Cleveland, OH is $28,974. Males in Cleveland, OH have an average income that is 1.33 times higher than the average income of females, which is $46,904. The income inequality in Cleveland, OH (measured using the Gini index) is 0.457, which is lower than the national average. Households in Cleveland, OH have a median annual income of $28,974, which is less than the median annual income of $60,336 across the entire United States. This is in comparison to a median income of $27,551 in 2016, which represents a 5.16% annual growth.
In 2017, Cincinnati, OH had a population of 301k people with a median age of 32.7 and a median household income of $38,938. Between 2016 and 2017 the population of Cincinnati, OH grew from 298,802 to 301,305, a 0.838% increase and its median household income grew from $38,539 to $38,938, a 1.04% increase. The population of Cincinnati, OH is 47.5% White Alone, 42.3% Black or African American Alone, and 3.91% Hispanic or Latino. N/A% of the people in Cincinnati, OH speak a non-English language, and 95.6% are U.S. citizens. The largest universities in Cincinnati, OH are University of Cincinnati-Main Campus (10,382 degrees awarded in 2016), Xavier University (1,668 degrees), and Cincinnati State Technical and Community College (1,414 degrees). The median property value in Cincinnati, OH is $143,100, and the homeownership rate is 37%. Most people in Cincinnati, OH commute by Drove Alone, and the average commute time is 22 minutes. The average car ownership in Cincinnati, OH is 2 cars per household. The economy of Cincinnati, OH employs 153k people. The largest industries in Cincinnati, OH are Health Care & Social Assistance (24,557 people), Retail Trade (17,442 people), and Manufacturing (14,917 people), and the highest paying industries are Management of Companies & Enterprises ($85,058), Finance & Insurance ($64,680), and Finance & Insurance, & Real Estate & Rental & Leasing ($59,144). Median household income in Cincinnati, OH is $38,938. Males in Cincinnati, OH have an average income that is 1.33 times higher than the average income of females, which is $46,904. The income inequality in Cincinnati, OH (measured using the Gini index) is 0.457, which is lower than the national average. Households in Cincinnati, OH have a median annual income of $38,938, which is less than the median annual income of $60,336 across the entire United States. This is in comparison to a median income of $38,539 in 2016, which represents a 1.04% annual growth.
- Process improvement
- Improved options
- Logistics management
- Procurement excellence
- Supply-chain process
- Outsourcing optimization
- Insourcing optimization
- Lean process
- Productivity improvement
- Distribution enhancement
- Performance improvement
- Productivity improvement
- Stakeholder management
- Supply-chain process
- Decentralized approach
- International engagement
- Strategic alliances
- Proactive distribution
- Lean management
- Project management
- Global process
- Business partnering
- Cost reduction
- Mergers acquisitions
- Quality management
- Production improvement
- Supply-chain Globalization
- Process decentralization
- Competitive improvement
- Return on investment
“As a Material Planner, Mr. Hendricks was responsible for creating and updating supplier releases, ensuring on time delivery of production material, and supplier performance. In his role as a SAP Key User, he played an instrumental role in transitioning legacy processes and procedures to the SAP environment and developing the SAP cycle process for the plant. Additionally, Mr. Hendricks effectively scheduled and managed the daily cycle count process, coordinating the activities of 4 cycle checkers across a 24×7 operation. Mr. Hendricks was always willing to offer his assistance and had an excellent rapport with the many constituents served by Production Control & Logistics, including production, suppliers, material handling, and other stake holders. I would highly recommend him for any position or career that he may now choose to pursue.”
A testimonial provided by Faurecia.
“This is my personal and professional recommendation for Mr. Hendricks. In my previous assignment at MTU, as the Manager in charge of Parts Customer Service and Material Planning, I had the pleasure of hiring Mr. Hendricks for Material Planning and Scheduling. He immediately brought a lot of enthusiasm and commitment to the job. His attention to detail and willingness to take on new assignments have assisted him to adapt quickly to the changing work environment at MTU. Mr. Hendricks’ knowledge of SAP, material planning skills and can-do attitude, made him a well-respected member of the After Sales Team. His daily contacts with the offices in Germany and his coordination of emergency parts drop shipments, gave him valuable experience in dealing with German business culture and in tracking international shipments. I highly recommend Mr. Hendricks.”
A testimonial provided by MTU.
Valeo North America
“I highly recommend Mr. Hendricks as a candidate for employment. He was employed as Supply Chain Material Planning & Production Control Supervisor. Mr. Hendricks was responsible for coordination and management the MPS ( Master Production Schedule) & SIOP ( Sales, Inventory and Operation Plan) process. He managed the load of the plant and proposed resources regarding customer demands, recognizing and managing all demand for products from customers by driving SIOP & MPS as well to manage the material procurement from suppliers. Mr. Hendricks has excellent communication skills. In addition, he is extremely organized, reliable and computer literate. Mr. Hendricks can work independently and is able to follow through to ensure that the job is done. He is flexible and willing to work on any project that is assigned to him. Mr. Hendricks would be a tremendous asset for any company and has my highest recommendation.”
A testimonial provided by Valeo North America.
More detailed achievements, references and testimonials are confidentially available to clients upon request.