The Ambidextrous Supply Chain
Updated: Sep 2
George E. Danner
When I was a kid, I had a very good friend who could play baseball equally well with both hands. He could throw and bat on either side. For a kid this seemed like having some strange magical superpower. As hard as I tried I could never match his rare skill. Now as I got older I was pretty good at sports, but my left hand was always weaker and less coordinated than my right. My right hand and my right arm were stronger and bigger than my left. Subconsciously I likely exercised my right hand and arm more as well. In other words, I allowed my left hand to drift into a sedentary lifestyle.
The same appears to be true for US domestic industrial firms, where the non-dominant supply chain is based in the US (if at all), and the dominant supply chain is in Asia or some other low- cost source country. We have allowed much of our industrial component production to be globally outsourced while simultaneously weakening all domestic sources of supply that were once vibrant. This is not a political argument against globalism, it is simply a factual observation of the behavior of firms for the last 3 decades. What is new, however, is a realization of how dependent US manufacturing firms are to supply chains that were founded on the assumption that transportation links between Asia and the US would never be compromised. That was a good, solid assumption...until it wasn’t. Now, firms that are dependent on globally scattered supply chains are feeling a swift and severe impact and have few options at their immediate disposal.
So when the worst of COVID-19 is over and the economy begins the slow and painful process of recovery, will we slip back to the old ways of global supply chains? Yes, undoubtedly many firms will. But a few forward-thinking firms might use this extraordinary disaster to re-think long held supply chain assumptions. Perhaps it's time to exercise that atrophied left hand to build a better performing athlete.
The Mental Model of the Low Cost Elsewhere
The herd mentality of industrial firms gave unwavering weight to the argument that sourcing components and materials from countries outside of North America results in a lower overall delivered unit cost of a product than the same product sourced inside of North America. I have been a personal witness to many of these calculations, some of which were thorough and accurate, many of them based on 3rd hand rules of thumb and shallow analysis that simply affirmed a subjective point of view. I believe that many of these outsourcing decisions were misleading at best to company leadership, and incorrect decisions to outsource were made (I am guessing that very few firms anticipated the leveling effect of tariffs and anti-dumping regulations that were enacted within the last decade). Yet, herd mentality is an incredibly strong force. Because this then gave rise to an entire ecosystem of industrial production in countries like China, the network effects of lower cost offshoring became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I am not advocating for an equally blind pendulum swing back to “re-shoring”, a word that you are going to hear a lot of about in the next few years. Rather, I would prefer that thoughtful firms look closely at an ambidextrous supply chain, one that is equally facile with both domestic and international supply lines.
On Being Ambidextrous
In an ambidextrous supply chain, mirrored capacity is held on both sides of the ocean. On the domestic side the capacity can be active (actually producing some fraction of total output at all times) or it could be warm capacity (held in stasis but capable of rapid activation at any moment).
The argument against this is predictable: dual supply chains will be very costly to maintain, far outweighing any benefits they convey. I will readily admit that ambidextrous supply chains are not for everyone. But before you dismiss the idea based on purely qualitative counterarguments, consider the juxtaposition of outsourced costs versus domestic, as shown in the Figure below.
These risk-adjusted cost components are real, and must be accounted for in any fair analysis of the cost/benefit of supply chain decisions. My belief is that in a fair fight, domestic production is in many cases at or near geoparity (another term that will be popular) with its offshore counterpart. I encourage every firm to conduct an A/B test simulation of A: simulate a “day in the life” of my traditional supply chain, versus B: the same day in an ambidextrous supply chain using the same KPIs in both cases. Even if A wins this is a healthy exercise for any company that is serious about the science of competitive advantage.
Then there is the option value. Like holding a call option on a stock, such rights are quite valuable in an era of great uncertainty. The optionality of playing the arbitrage between offshore and domestic production works well when tariffs or strikes or weather events favor one over the other. Thankfully we have Real Options analysis methods at our disposal to numerically assess the option value of ambidexterity.
The term “mirror image” is perhaps misleading here. Domestic production could involve a much smaller form factor than say a much larger mass production complex that exists offshore. As appropriate, the domestic counterpart could be more like a pilot plant and could also involve 3D printing versus large metal-forming processes and infrastructure. As an industrial asset owner, you simply have many more technological tools at your disposal today than a decade ago.
The landscape of business competitiveness is forever changed with COVID-19. Forever.
The skills that are prized in this new era are agility and robustness. Those firms that will prosper are those that do everything in their power to bake these characteristics into their strategies. Consider ambidexterity as one measured step into this brave new world. Get started now.
Good luck everyone.
This presentation is being furnished on a confidential basis to a limited number of investors for informational and discussion purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to purchase any security. The information set forth herein does not purport to be complete and is subject to change. Investors should be aware that an investment in any transactions discussed herein involves a high degree of risk, including the potential complete loss of their entire investment.
This presentation does not constitute an offer or solicitation in any state or other jurisdiction to subscribe for or purchase any securities. Recipients of this presentation agree that Valedor Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Valedor”), its managers, partners, agents, affiliates, and assigns shall have no liability for any misstatement or omission of fact or any opinion expressed herein.
The information contained herein must be treated in a confidential manner and may not be reproduced, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Valedor, and is not intended to be relied on as the basis for an investment decision.
Valedor, its managers, partners, agents, affiliates, and assigns make no representations or warranties whatsoever, nor are any such representations or warranties to be implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, or correctness of the information supplied hereunder.
Calculations and economic illustrations presented herein are based on various assumptions, including forward-looking expectations, but Valedor, its managers, partners, agents, affiliates, and assigns do not make any representations, warranties, or guarantees as to the future financial performance or the economic returns that any investor can expect. Certain investments identified in this document have not yet closed, might close on different terms from those assumed, and/or are subject to factors that may affect Valedor’s willingness or ability to close these investments. As stated above, this document is not intended to be relied on as the basis for an investment decision.
In considering any performance data herein, each investor should bear in mind that past performance may not be indicative of future results, and there can be no assurance that unrealized investments will be realized at the valuations assumed as actual realized returns will depend, inter alia, on future operating results, the value of the assets, market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing and manner of realization, all of which may differ from the assumptions on which the valuations contained herein are based. Results herein may be subject to subsequent adjustment. Except where otherwise indicated, the information herein is based on matters as they exist as of the date of preparation of the information (which might differ from the date of preparation of this document) and not as of any future date. Due to various risks and uncertainties, actual events or results or the actual performance of any investments discussed herein may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. The information in this presentation about prior investments and investment strategies is provided solely to illustrate investment experience. Prospective results included in this presentation may not take into account fees, costs, or other charges, and do not represent the results of actual investments.
An investor should consult its own attorney, business advisor, investment advisor, or tax advisor as to such matters concerning the information contained herein.
DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE HERE: