WMS

I was reading a blog post by Trevor Miles the other day and found this sentence that sums up perfectly why software implementations (WMS, TMS, LMS, ERP, etc.) are so hard. Not only do you need the right people to define the future state, you need the right people with the right skills and experience to get you there!

Analyzing a situation is fairly easy, defining a future state is a lot harder, but the really hard part is defining the path to achieve the future state.

- Trevor Miles

I was looking over our sales figures by customer last week, and I started to spot a interesting trend. At Open Sky we typically have 2 types of customers that we work with. They are either a customer who is starting a implementation of a Supply Chain Execution System (SCES) such as a Warehouse Management System (WMS), Transportation Management System (TMS), a Labor Management System (LMS), or a combination of the above. Or they are a customer who has implemented one or more of these systems and the system is not meeting their expectations and they need to fix it.

What I found very interesting is that our customers who engaged Open Sky at the beginning of an implementation project spent about the same amount of money as our customers who engaged Open Sky for a get well project. While we don’t know what our customers total spend was for the SCSE system implementation, I think it is reasonable to assume that the total spend was more with a system that needed to be fixed than one that worked from the start.

I do plan to spend more time looking into this data to see if I can find out why the numbers are so similar. My suspicion at this point is that the original implementation took some shortcuts that eventually caught up with the system or the original team made some bad choices.

So it would appear that the following quote does apply to SCES implementations:

It takes less time to do things right than to explain why you did it wrong.
-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

A fellow supply chain execution systems professional, Mark Fralick, has wrote an article over at Supply Chain Digest that hits the nail on the head with regards to good solid Integration Design and Architecture. The article can be found by using this link.

Mark drives home the principal that good integration design and architecture is not the same thing as writing interfaces. Proper integration takes into account how the data will be used and if it will be useful. It considers the physical flow along with the logical flow.

We have seen time and time again where interfaces have reduced a companies’ ability to respond to customers due to poor design. At Open Sky we make a big point to have an Integration Architecture and Strategy phase with all of our integrations before the interfaces are mapped out or coded.

Once you have spent the proper time on design, interfaces can be inexpensive and fast. Unfortunately this has been a hard principal to explain to first time buyers of interfaces.

Last year Open Sky created formal training classes to teach users of RedPrairie software how to better utilize the tools they have available to them.    We do our training classes a little differently than you may be used to.  We do training in the customer's environment so the users are seeing the version they are used to with the customizations they use every day installed.

We will also incorporate deliverables into the training the customer is looking for such as a new screen, label, or report. This way by the end of the class, our customer has learned how to better use the tools they have, and they have something of value that was created as part of the class.

So far the feed back is fantastic.  We have received comments like this: "Not only do you learn how to use the tools, you learn why to use the tools."  

If you are interested in training your people how to better use this software, have a working training environment (we can also help you set this up if you don't have it), and have some things you want to create, go over to the Open Sky website to contact me please.

I found this interesting article today that named RedPrairie WMS as the top WMS for 3PLs.   I could not agree more.  RedPrairie WMS systems are highly adaptable to the ever changing needs of 3PLs.   The speed at which RedPrairie can be adapted to almost any process flow with MOCA, DDAs, Triggers, Policies, etc., makes this WMS ideal for 3PLs and 4PLs.  

A few weeks ago, a client of mine asked me how long it should take to process a typical fifty-three-foot trailer receipt into his RedPrairie WMS.   It became clear after talking for a few minutes that no one goods in process fits every operation.    This got me thinking about the goods in processes that I’ve helped my client’s setup and perfect over the years and I realized this would be a good topic (or series of topics) to write about.

First, there are technically many ways to achieve goods in to a WMS.  You can have goods in from Work Order Receipts, Shop Order Receipts, Manufacturing Line Receipts, Inventory Adjustments, Cycle Count Adjustments, and other sources particular to each operation.    These goods in sources are what I call Internal Receipts.   I’m going to focus on External Receipts such as Purchase Order Receipts, Customer Returns (RMAs, RGAs, etc.), Carrier Bounce, and Warehouse Transfer Shipments.

I will summarize this issue with a common tool called Outcome Visioning, something I find extremely useful when I want to clarify tasks. Since we want to focus on outcomes, the desired outcome of External goods in Receipts is to correctly identify and disposition the inventory being received against an authorization to receive those goods.    This reconciliation is essential to facilitate the next steps for the physical flow of the goods in the warehouse as well as the commercial flow of the payment of the goods.   Exceptions such as over/under receipt, invalid or expired receipt authorizations, quality, incorrect items, compliance failures, etc. must also be managed in this process.

Pallet Level ASN

Let me start with what I believe is the Gold Standard of goods in receipts, the Pre-Identified at the Pallet Level Advanced Shipment Notice (ASN) receipt.

To visualize this type of receipt imagine that you open your fifty-three-foot trailer and you see twenty-six pallets on the floor, each with a unique, bar-coded License Plate Number (LPN).  Each of these unique LPN numbers is associated in your WMS to the proper Receipt Authorization (i.e. Purchase Order Number) and all the details are known such as SKU, Lot Number, Country of Origin, Qty, etc.     All the Warehousemen have to do to unload the trailer is to scan the LPN and locate the goods to a Quality Inspection area or directly storage, cross dock, etc.    A trailer like this can be unloaded and completed in well under an hour.

One would think that in today’s world all receipts are processed like this.  However, in my experience, this type of goods in process is rare.  Of the twenty-eight plus WMS implementations I have firsthand experience with over the last fifteen years, I have only seen this process implemented one time for receipts from an external supplier.

Why, in 2009, is this sort of goods in process the exception and not the norm?   I believe this has to do with the cost and difficulty of integration, and the disparity of functionality and or data between the sending and receiving systems.    Let me address the latter first. 

Typically a Warehouse Management System (WMS) needs and stores different data about inventory than a Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP) or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system.   When I start integration projects, it often quickly becomes apparent that the master data the WMS needs to properly identify the inventory does not exist in the sending system.  Once that ugly fact is understood, you are typically left having humans identify the goods as they are received. 

The other challenge for many companies is that even if the data does exist, the cost of creating the necessary integration/EDI/etc. is too expensive for one of the partners in the relationship.   I have even seen this when the two trading partners are running the same WMS from the same Vendor and the integration should be quite simple.  

In addition to missing data and cost concerns, there is one more common reason why integration is not performed when it could be and at a reasonable cost.   Delays of necessary integration are often due to lack of understanding of the available technologies and functionality of the existing systems.  The best, and quickest, way to eliminate this understanding gap is to speak with a WMS specialist who can instruct you on the most cost effective way to attain the results you want. Continue reading "Goods In - Pallet Level ASN"

In addition to my 3Rs of a WMS implementation, I also believe there is a set of 3Ps. Those are Picking, Paperwork, and Performance.

Picking – You must have efficient pick methods. The software must work in your physical flow. Picking should be easy to do and easy to audit.

Paperwork – Do not underestimate the value of good paperwork. If you print it, it must be perfect. Pay attention to the data you are asked to print on your documents. Does your new system actually have a source for the data? Can the data be derived based on your processes? I often find that information we are asked to put on a report or label does not exist in the WMS.

Performance – if the system is slow or crashes nothing will matter. No executive will tolerate his/her business performance being linked to the performance of the hardware or software. Stress testing, tuning, monitoring, and good performance experts are needed in high volume warehouses. Even low volume warehouses will have processes that occasionally will stress the system. Also pay attention to data build up. Many systems run great when they have little data, but put too many rows in a table and now a process that should take 0.6 seconds takes 7 minutes.

Recently I went on record saying that every successful WMS implementation I’ve been part of required special attention and focus to the 3Rs of WMS. Those 3Rs in my mind are Receiving, Replenishment, and Reconciliation.

Receiving – If you don’t get the inventory into the WMS correctly, nothing else matters. Period.

Replenishment – If you have a warehouse that requires you replenish your stock to buildings, areas, pick faces, etc., you need to pay close attention to this area. Your Order Cycle times are usually only as good as your ability to get inventory in the right place at the right time.

Reconciliation – This one usually surprises most people. Generally because most companies don’t see the value of Reconciliation until after the first “month end”. You should plan to reconcile Inventory Position and Orders every 4 hours until you are comfortable that the system is working. Then do it every day. It will not hurt to also reconcile receipts, adjustments, or any interface you can programmatically monitor.

Another service we are offering at Open Sky is a third party independent WMS Utilization Assessment or RedPrairie Audit.  We have done a couple of these now and we have been able to help our clients solve many issues and gain better understanding of the software.   Often we solve several problems during the visit with some simple configuration changes.   If you are interested in a third party assessment of your RedPrairie WMS or implementation, go to the Open Sky website to contact me please.

If your company is looking to purchase a new WMS, or your first WMS, chances are you will do one of 3 things. Many of you will hire a consultant to come in and help you select a WMS. Others will talk to your network of contacts in your industry and see what they have. And finally some of you will just go to Google and put in WMS and try to sort it out yourself.

The first group will most likely be well served if they picked a good consultant (again check your network and see who others used). The second group may also do well as they are working with software that worked for someone like them (make sure your business is like the guys who you bet your selection on). But in the last group, those of you who are going to do this yourself, will soon find there are over 6.5 million pages to wade through on Google alone. And after you have read 6 pages, you will start to see that everyone’s feature list looks the same anyway, they all have great success stories, and no one will give you an indication of price (one exception here may be the hosted software guys).

For those of you who still insist on doing your own WMS selection, you will be well served to pick up a copy of Philip Obal’s book, Selecting Warehouse Software From WMS and ERP Providers (http://www.idii.com/sws/). I know Phill is a hands on guy and he is the consultant that many companies hire to help them select a WMS (including some of my clients). In addition to this book, the IDII website has other very helpful resources such as RFPs for WMS and TMS, Warehouse Optimization guides, etc. They are all priced right too.