Cross Border Journal

Welcome to Cross Border Journal

In order to improve one-stop access to information on global supply chain management, I have created the following customized Google search engines for your convenience:

Blogs on SCM

News on SCM

Research on SCM

This will remain at the top of the page for easy access into the future.

The Story of Australia: 1788 to 1810

Before the moment I actually landed on Australian soil to live and work here, I had only a superficial understanding of Australia--mostly originating from Crocodile Dundee films. I knew there would be much more to the country and people than that, but really had no idea what to expect.

Fast forward to the present, more than 2 years later, and my knowledge and familiarity of Australia (primarily Melbourne) has grown considerably. Around the middle of last year, I decided that I needed to begin some self-education of Australian history going back to its 'discovery' by Captain James Cook in 1770. I feel that, as a foreigner in Australia, I have some responsibility to study its origins and culture through the lens of history. Like citizens in the U.S., there are many Australians here who admittedly know little detail regarding their nation's history, but the reality is that their behaviour, mannerisms, and approaches to life are rooted in certain aspects of Australian history. My aim here is to understand the heritage of the society and overall context within which I now work and live everyday.

My desire to actually sit down and make a concerted effort at the study of Australian history was spurred by finding a book called 'A New History of Australia' in a second-hand book store. It nicely dissects Australian history into approximate 20-year periods up until 1974 (when the book was first published). Each of these chapters is written by a different contemporary, Australian historian. In a running series, I will touch on each of these periods as I read and take notes. However, it is important to emphasize that my summaries are not comprehensive of historical opinion or reasearch.

Like the United States, the Anglo-history of Australia is relatively short. Unlike the United States, however, Australia was the most distant colony ever undertaken by the British Empire, and as a result, the strain of physical isolation weighed heavily on the country. Frankly, pure survival was the key theme of this period in Australia.

Settlement was concentrated in the region of New South Wales, as is pointed out in the map below:

At its core, the first colony at Port Jackson was founded primarily as a military penal colony and thus commerce was controlled by the military, which ruled harshly over the mostly convict population transported from Great Britain. Even before the time of the First Fleet's arrival in 1788 with the first convicts and occupants of Port Jackson, the British Empire had essentially lost its American territory and looked to the East for additional lands to continue its ongoing transportation policy for convicts. Only later did the plan for Australia and its role in the British Empire become more comprehensive as Great Britain tried to remain competitive against the interests of other nations in the East. As noted by historian A.G.L. Shaw:

"The advantages were based not on commerce or imperial development, but on economy. It was said that the land was so fertile that the settlement would be self-sufficient in two years; it was so isolated that 'return would be difficult', and the cost of guarding the prisoners would therefore be small. Thus while 'no man could doubt' that it was 'necessary...to send...incorrigible criminals out of the Kingdom', as Pitt said in defending the settlement in the House of Commons in 1791, 'no cheaper mode of disposing the convicts could be found'; he apparently disagreed with the opinion of the 1784 committee that the cost of a penal settlement was so great that it could only be justified if there were compensating 'Political and Commercial Benefits'."

While Governor Philip and his successors in this period--Hunter, King and Bligh--oversaw the gradually expanding convict population transported from Britain, they all struggled with ensuring colonial survival and the responsibility of managing some sort of governing system. Due to the limited size of the colony, its evolution in this period is best described through the character and actions of each governor.

Governor Arthur Philip, a captain in the British Royal Navy, "received commission in April 1787 that mandated the governor to maintain law and order and was given power to grant land, control commerce, pardon criminals, raise armed forces, and issue regulations and orders." However, it was understood that any back-and-forth communication with Britain could required up to 2 years at a time. There was also "no Council or Assembly to restrict the governor's power" like which had been established in the American colonies. For Philip, however, there was much to be done before any refinement of the wheels of governance. The "first problem was to make sure that his settlement would survive. Not only were many of the early inhabitants put up in tents due to lack of means in building solid structures, there was a shortage of food due to insufficiently imported supplies as well as no local means to develop agriculture and sustain some kind of livestock. As conditions and diets worsened, the only hospital was overwhelmed and the population was soon so weak that little could be done in terms of building and infrastructure. When the Second Fleet finally arrived with new supplies 1790, the colony was much relieved. It was only due to "Philip's patience, dignity and perserverence" that "enabled him to lead the settlement successfully in its battle for survival" and which raised the legitimacy of the colony in the eyes British leadership.

In 1795, when Governor Hunter arrived to formally replace Philip, who had left in 1792, "he was amazed at the transformation which had taken place since he had left the colony more than four years before." In the intervening years, military officers had been empowered to take land and develop it into sustainable farms and grazing pasture for livestock upon which the colony would survive. The most famous of these officers was John Macarthur (pictured), who will be discussed in more detail shortly.  Hunter "sympathized with the officers who were developing thier farms, and he refused to carry out his instructions to remove thier convict servants or to increase the public cultivation." In fact, these officers used their clout to prevent any interference by the government, which was weak and still quite disconnected from British empire. They controlled not only the colony's sustenance but also the trade of imported goods from Britain, as well as any goods that could be obtained from the Asia-Pacific or East Indies.

In his passion for the natural sciences, Hunter expanded exploration of Australia, employing the services of seaworthy explorers such as Matthew Flinders and George Bass. It was at this time that Van Dieman's Land, known today as Tasmania, was sailed in full and confirmed to be an island. Other discoveries included many of the well know river valleys of the Southeast as well as a number of now well-known Australian animals.

In the end, however, Hunter was recalled by the higher authorities in England towards the end of 1799 due to his failure to "control the liquor traffice, stop the military officers trading, and worst of all, had not brought about economical efficiencies in the colony." Of course, there was no note that he had had very little support from both England and the locals in the first place.

Governor King took over in September of 1800 with the economy being the major issue. At this point "nearly half the men and three-quarters of the women and childern were being supported by the government." Some of the enactments King made between 1800-1804 included reducing "the price the commissariat paid for grain, enforcing the payment of debts owing to the Crown, reducing the number of convict servants allowed to officials at public expense from 356 to 94, and cut the numbers being victualled by the government from about 60% to 40% of the population." On top of this, there a number of port fees and import duties imposed to help cover government expenses as well as contribute to funds for an orphanage and local infrastructure.

During this time, regular and unhibited trade struggled to gain a foothold in the colony due to pressure from East India Company interests suppressing what support might have existed in England and regionally in the Asia-Pacific. In the midst of this, the colony attempted to find its niche with which it could produce something of value in trade with the homeland--establishments of coal, timber, flax, cotton, tobacco and wine exports failed to take hold.

Having been earlier sent to England for his antagonistic role in government affairs in the colony, the enterprising John Macarthur had been gaining favor in some circles in England and was encouraged to return to Australia with sheep drawn from the Crown's royal flock, to establish a breeding ground from which England could rely on in future trade. Although cattle had surpassed sheep in numbers, Macarthur returned to Australia with renewed enterprising vigor and the same eagerness to challenge Governor King as he was before being arrested. This would be the fire the sparked the future wool-boom.

Although King struggled with his responsibilities towards the end of his governorship, he had put Australia on a stronger footing. Where Philip had helped the colony to simply survive, King had built in it the resilience and viability required to  continue on and sustain itself. He had expanded England's claims to officially colonize Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania) as another penal colony and while he could not control it completely, he had considerably brought the liquor trade down to a reasonable volume as compared to that under his predecessor.

Unfortunately, the arrival of Governor Bligh (pictured) in 1806 had a dampening effect on the colony to end its first 20 years. Although he intended to continue King's reforms, he overreached and drew the ire of the leading constituents of the time--the existing officers, entreprising former officers, such as Macarthur, and the remaining trading community. He restricted the options through which soldiers could be paid and in addition banned the use of rum as an article of barter or incentive payment, from which officers and former officers had profited considerably, including Macarthur.

His problems with Macarthur culminated in a series of confrontations in both business and in court. The first was ruling against Macarthur in a court case where Macarthur had attempted in 1806 to convert an 1805 promissary note that, common practice with debts at the time, had its value denoted in both currency and wheat. This was a problem given that floods had caused wheat prices to quadruple in 1806, an event which Macarthur aimed to take advantage of with his promissary note. Bligh reinforced the ruling against Macarthur.

Up until this point, Bligh had remained within his legal boundaries, despite whatever he lacked in competence. What brought him down completely was a final confrontation with Macarthur in the courts where a ruling by presiding officers was in favor of Macarthur's demand to remove a certain government official, a ruling Bligh opposed and refused to implement. Macarthur proceeded to convince the involved officers of the need to rebel and depose of Bligh, who was promptly put under arrest. As the author notes in final reflection on Bligh's governorship:

"His temperament was against him, he lacked patience and ability to oppose the intolerant, intriguing and ever discontented if always self-righteous Macarthur, whose ambitions were aided by the malcontent officers in a corps which had been too long in the colony."

******************************************************************************************************************************************

When Governor Macquarie arrived to restore order and governorship of the colony on December 31st, 1809, Bligh had already been released to return to England. Macarthur himself went to England to answer for the events and responsibility of the rebellion and its after effects. He would not return until after 1817, when he was assured he would not be arrested upon arrival in Sydney.

The population in Australia of this period reached up to 12,000 inhabitants, of which 1,500 were in Van Dieman's Land and of which 1,000 were soldiers. Macquarie described "the colony he found as 'barely emerging from infantile imbecility', the population depressed by poverty, agriculture languishing, and public buildings delapidated." But the change from the colony's birth in 1788 could not be disputed. As was noted by one Dr. Arnold, "...'thirty years ago this place was entirely a forest', but in 1810, 'a person coming into Sydney Cove would think himself in the midst of a large city; if he dines on shore he finds all the luxury and elegance of the finest English tables'."

*******************************************************************************************************************************************

What is to be taken from this period in Australian history? There is much to deride in this period as an illustration of the worst characteristics of colonial conquest and imperial rule. The horrible treatment of convicts as part of the transportation policy, the reckless abandon with which Aborigines were treated in Van Dieman's land and elsewhere, and the imposing and often indifferent nature of military rule--these served to limit colonial progress in many ways. But the conditions under which everyone involved had to live and survive--the distance from all that anyone ever knew, the foreign landscape and wilderness, the poor condition of the most basic supplies--had no equal in the Empire at the time. Once in Australia, in many respects, it was every man for themselves up to the level of governor. And thus, one must appreciate the development of a resilience, a tenacity, and a will to 'give it a go' in the face of such adversity.

China's Proceeds Apace with Central Asia Strategy: What is America's to Match?

Via the New York Times: China Quietly Extends Its Footprints Deep Into Central Asia

Relative to China, the modern foreign policy of the U.S. in regards to Central Asia is fairly new. I believe this modern foreign policy began its life from September 11th, 2001, where from that moment since our armed forces and political leadership has sought to permanently eliminate Afghanistan as a safe haven for the planning and management of international terrorism. For those who follow the conflict closely, it is not news that the countries neighboring Afghanistan are able to, at varying degrees, make this effort easier or more difficult. Some countries provide the needed logistical support and increased trade links required to provide a sense of economic and social stability within Afghanistan. At the same time, other countries continue to remain as safe havens to those forces dedicated only to further destabilizing Afghanistan and prolonging the effort of U.S. and allied armed forces until they withdraw entirely. Unfortunately, when the U.S. government refers to Afghanistan, the focus remains on those efforts directly related to the military mission, including supporting activities managed by civilian administrators. The question remains as to what is being done by the U.S. and its allies on the periphery of Afghanistan to ensure it can continue on a self-supported, sustainable path after our armed forces are removed from the country?

This article by the New York Times reveals that, while China moves forward in executing a clear strategy of its own for increasing regional stability on its own borders, the U.S. is largely in reactive mode. The Chinese approach the region on multiple fronts:

"Chinese officials see Central Asia as a critical frontier for their nation’s energy security, trade expansion, ethnic stability and military defense. State enterprises have reached deep into the region with energy pipelines, railroads and highways, while the government has recently opened Confucius Institutes to teach Mandarin in capitals across Central Asia."

That America does not have a clear strategy for the region is highlighted in the Chinese weariness of American activities in Central Asia:

"Chinese officials are wary of what they view as American efforts to surround China, seeing American troops and military alliances in Central Asia, India and Afghanistan as the western arc of a containment strategy that also relies on cooperation with nations in East and Southeast Asia.

"China is flexing its own military muscle in the area, conducting sophisticated war games in Kazakhstan in September as part of annual exercises that traditionally include several Central Asian nations. According to a State Department cable released by WikiLeaks, American officials suspected China of offering Kyrgyzstan $3 billion to shut down the American air base there."

The article highlights a quote from anonymous American official that does not offer any insight into the American strategy for Central Asia and further paints the Americans as a spectator to developments outside of Afghanistan:

""The growing economic footprint in Central Asia is pretty significant," said an American official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about Chinese policy in the region. "In many ways, the investments are welcomed, not only by those countries, but also by the U.S. But there’s a lack of transparency in terms of China’s investments and relations with those countries.""

One official bluntly exposes the U.S. lack of strategy:

""China’s energy cooperation with Central Asian countries began in the 1990s, but in recent years, with the rapid growth of China’s national strength, China took advantage of the lack of initiative in the region by the United States and Russia," General Liu wrote in an essay published last summer in the news magazine Phoenix Weekly. "China has begun stimulating feverish consumerism in the area.""

There are obviously Americans and American enterprises working in Central Asia on projects that aim to help regional development, but it is past time that the U.S. government put forth a strategic context to these activities and help ensure our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan are not put to waste.

Obama's 2010 Progress on a Grand Strategy for the Asia-Pacific

Earlier in 2009, I wrote several posts speculating on how the Obama Administration would develop their grand strategy for the Asia-Pacific. Last year, I followed this up with a review of 2009 accomplishments. For convenience, I have provided links to the key posts below:

Speculation on Obama's Grand Strategy for the Asia-Pacific Part I, II, III, IV, V, VI, 2010 Follow-Up

Essentially, I suggested that Obama would rely on and lean on the "three legs" of SoS Clinton, SoT Geithner and SoD Gates in crafting strategy directed at the Asia-Pacific. Quickly reviewing each member's performance in 2010:

• SoS Clinton has continued to maintain her stature, but the recent Wikileaks scandal has exposed the Administration. It will be important in 2011 for State to better manage the Administration's message overseas and those communications shared with allies and partners. In the Asia-Pacific, Clinton recently made a round of visits to various countries, including Australia, and this provided needed visibility in the region to round off 2010 initiatives.
• SoD Gates continues to do a solid job of maintaining existing relationships from a defense and security perspective with Asia-Pacific countries. In 2010, the issues relating to U.S. military installations in Okinawa were resolved. But, at the same time, the situation on the Korean peninsula has had a slight eruption with North Korea's recent attacks on a South Korean ship and most recently an island near the disputed dividing line between the countries. In addition to ongoing missions in Central Asia, tensions with North Korea are likely to require greater attention and management across the region and highlight the importance of managing relations with China, Japan and South Korea (and Russia to some degree) from a unified, strategic perspective.
• SoT Geithner continued to have a rough time in 2010, since, as I speculated last year, he had done little to prepare himself for a better year by the end of 2009. He continues to fail on fiscal policy and Geithner's actions have yet to address the soaring debt and lack of fiscal restraint. Both Obama and Geithner were roundly refuted in this policy at the recent G20 summit while also losing face in the eyes of the American public as reflected in the Democratic Party's resounding electoral defeats. This continues to make him weak in speaking with countries in the Asia-Pacific, especially China, and particularly when telling other countries how they should be managing their fiscal policy. With Obama reversing on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of last year, and new Republican leadership in the House and across much of the U.S., it will be interesting to observer Geithner's moves in 2011. 

For most of 2010, Clinton and Gates again carried more than their fair share of the weight for Obama in the Asia-Pacific, but this time falling short in making up for Geithner's continued poor performance. The G20 refutation of American fiscal policy, while conducting the meetings in the Asia-Pacific no less, by the majority of countries was the low point for the year. I feel Obama and Geithner lost additional edge by going to the G20 meeting with such chutzpah as to coax other countries to adopt their losing policies, while poking China again on the yuan revaluation issue. This after Obama had lost additional luster from the election due to massive Democratic Party defeats across the U.S.

I will repeat what I wrote last year: China, whether you agree with their policies or not, is a deliberately long-term thinking nation at the top in regards to domestic policy and thus a negotiator working with them to make changes to this domestic policy must factor this into their strategy. This policy will not change based only on the short-term policy fancies of SoT Geithner and President Obama.

Let's review briefly how the Obama Administration made progress on my initial recommendations for 2010. This is intended to be a thought exercise at a very high-level from which more detailed discussions on individual topics can be had: 

• Shoring up fiscal policy at home: continued to fail on this point, but a reversal on keeping all of the Bush tax cuts at the end of the year offered a glimmer of hope for 2011
• Reaching important milestones in efforts to restore stability to Afghanistan (which borders China): with General Petraeus now leading the effort in Afghanistan, the potential for success has increased but the situation still remains precarious due to Obama's previous withdrawal deadline commitments for 2011 and the continuing lack of regional strategy
• Stepping back from the hollow science of CO2 reductions, and outlining a partnership program for tackling climate adaptation through practical technologies and solutions: the Administration is still clinging to U.N. politics on this point, which is bad for the U.S. and the world
• Strengthening trade relationships with traditional Asia-Pacific partners and opening doors and dialogue with others in parallel to the ongoing trade deals within the Asia-Pacifc: some positive developments were made on this front towards the end of the year with Obama's movement on the South Korean FTA and now Japan is making some movements in a similar direction
• Find a few strategic activities led by the U.S. through which both India and China can be engaged together: nothing particularly to take note of on this point; low-hanging fruit would be Afghanistan and the strengthening of cross-border linkages in Northeast India, Southwest China.
• Working behind the scenes on contingency plans with China and South Korea in regards to a possible collapse of North Korea: with the recent tensions, this continues to rise in importance and the leaked diplomatic cables combined with the announcements from China shortly after hostilities took place help illustrate that no cooperative, strategic solution to a collapse or suddent escalation of hostilities is truly in place between neighboring countries
• Leveraging Japan as a technology partner for solutions to the impact of aging societies across the Asia-Pacific (health care, mobility, workplace assistance, knowledge transfers, etc.): no progress on this as a strategy, but perhaps could be part of a future free trade agreement between the U.S. and Japan
• Encouraging the investing in the infrastructure of and linkages to the Asia-Pacific logistics corridor: this happens continually in the private sector, and between Asia-Pacific governmental committees, but no formal strategy in U.S. foreign policy explicitly mentions the importance of this; but it is important to consider as the U.S. Navy helps maintain security along the primary corridors throughout the Asia-Pacific

I would add this year that a review of the long chains of national energy and natural resource supply and demand in light of ongoing demand in the Asia-Pacific be conducted and then incorporated into regional, strategic initiatives.

As I mentioned last year, from the perspective of a supply chain professional working in the Asia-Pacific, it is important that the U.S. maintain respect and positive involvement in dealing with the region and that it provides a solid strategic context within which U.S. businesses and organizations--public and private--will thrive and succeed. I look forward to the vigorous debates of the above issues across the web and will be watching to see what progress, if any, the Obama Administration makes in regards to the Asia-Pacific in the new year.

Thoughts on Leadership to Start the New Year

First of all, Happy New Year to all readers!

I do appreciate the small, steady stream of visitors even in the absence of my writing and updates. For me, the second half of 2010, particularly after my vacation in September, was full of 60-80 hour work weeks and a number of challenges on multiple projects. In the little spare time I had outside of spending time with family, I decided to devote more time to reading rather than writing and I ended the year finishing three outstanding books that share a common thread of discussion and reflection on leadership. Those books are: the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, Lee: The Last Years, and Churchill on Leadership: Executive Success in the Face of Adversity.

U.S. Grant's Personal Memoirs were written himself just prior to his death by cancer in 1885 -- now over 125 years ago. The other two books are retrospectives on their main characters. The most common personal characteristic I have found in Grant, Lee and Churchill is their ability to link history to their present circumstances and then, with great breadth of vision, take action based on a grander strategy than what few of their contemporaries could have or would have conceived.

History in these mens' cases should not be thought of only on the scale of a nation or region, but also in terms of organizations and institutions. When entering a company or institution or organization, we may not explicitly consider or reflect on it, but from the first day we are dealing with remnants of the historical legacy established within the organization we have joined. As a result, to provide leadership and to bring about positive change in these environments, an understanding of their history at multiple levels and of how things came to be the way they are at the present is critical.

In Grant's Personal Memoirs, as he tells the story of his return to the Army, his frustration with military leadership in the Union Army is clear as he gains responsibility and promotion after each successful battle. His kinship with General Sherman, a military visionary and strategist himself, is evident as they wield their forces under a single, unified strategy to defeat those forces of the Confederate South. Throughout, the resourcefulness of the Northern people and states supplies them overwhelmingly with everything they need to ensure the execution of their strategy is successful--a larger population from which to draw soldiers, the latest technology in bringing forth supplies and in enhancing front line communications, the latest in modern weaponry and innovations in the Northern economy to provide agricultural products with less labor, freeing up more war personnel. Grant's detailed attention in writing about the Mexican and Civil wars and comparatively little to no attention paid to his personal life and presidency reveals what he probably felt, during his final months, were the foundations of his life and legacy. In fact, his history in the Mexican War only gains in prominence because so many of the men he knew and fought with from that day were met upon the battlefields of the Civil War, and it is here that the history of his experience in the West and in Mexico becomes an advantage; because he knew they were mortal men personally, when confronting them as the enemy, his trepidations and anxiety before each battle were never as great as in those Union soldiers whose only reference were the praises sung in the Northern newspapers of the enemy's commanders' genius.

On the flip side of Grant's story, is Robert E. Lee, the Confederate General of the Civil War. The book Lee: The Last Years, is an excellent segway from Grant's memoirs as Grant essentially ends his account at the Confederate surrender received from Lee at Appomattox while the book on Lee starts at this point, recounting the final years until his death five years later (1870). This is a very well-researched book and inspiring story of Lee's dedication to leading the South's recovery from the war by example, both as a contributing citizen and college president of Washington College (later to be become Washington and Lee University). There are some very interesting factual nuggets in this book that I wasn't aware of, such as Arlington Cemetary originally having been the home of Lee and his family, the property handed down to his wife as a descendant of Martha Washington. Based on this book, I am looking forward to finding some additional reading material on the Reconstruction Period--any recommendations are appreciated.

Rounding out these readings is the handbook-like Churchill on Leadership. Having not yet read any of Churchill's writings or biography in detail, this is an excellent introduction to the man's life and career, viewed through the prism of leadership and its characteristics. Churchill was a true renaissance man and his life is full of examples of adaptive leadership in the face of adversity. Many of the leadership points to remember from his life that are summarised at the end of each chapter may seem obvious by themselves, but they really come to life when reading how they were applied in specific situations. This is the perfect type of book to have on an office shelf to which a manager can quickly refer to when facing a particular challenge, a new role transition, or sudden increase in responsibilities.

As we reflect on 2010 and look forward to 2011, I leave the reader with the following 1938 Churchill quote from the Chapter on 'Confronting Failure and Learning from Mistakes':

"We must learn from misfortune the means of future strength."

May we learn from any misfortune in 2010 so that 2011 is filled with strength.

New Books in the Mail for Future Reading

I am back in the US and on vacation and had ordered a few books in advance of my arrival to refresh my inventory for future reading. Those books are listed below:

1. Churchill on Leadership, by Steven F. Hayward
2. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by James M. Washington
3. Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant
4. Characters and Viewpoint (Elements of Fiction Writing), by Orson Scott Card
5. Courage and Consequence, by Karl Rove
6. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, by K. Eric Drexler

I look forward to sharing thoughts on some of these over the next few months.

Book Review: Soldiers Without Borders - A Global Network of Brothers-In-Arms

No book epitomizes the nature of today's globalized world more than Ian McPhedran's "Soldiers Without Borders," a book that covers the post-Australia SAS (Special Air Service) lives of multiple former soldiers.

The alumni of the SAS are situated around the world, comprising a tightly-knitted network of individuals and families with the shared values of trust, high-level competency, and "mateship." From corporate boardrooms to the latest hot-zones to the Australian political scene, Mr. McPhedran profiles from chapter to chapter the full spectrum of journies upon which so many retired SAS individuals have found themselves over the years.

One of the surprises was how many individuals have roles within the United Arab Emirates armed forces as instructors and even officers. It is also interesting to read about how the special forces from the US and Britain are perceived by the Australian special forces during their service time together abroad in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

I only have a couple issues with the book:

1. Mr. McPhedran recycles some of the lazy arguments and half-truths about the Bush Administration's lead up to the invasion of Iraq. There is plenty to criticize the Bush Administration for, but these snarky comments add zero value to the book and at times take away from the books solid tone and main purpose.
2. Because Mr. McPhedran uses a lot of first names and fake names to protect identities, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of who he is writing about when. The fact that a few of the chapters are a bit disjointed, with little help in linking back and forth the various characters, is slightly annoying.

Overall, I recommend this book highly, especially for those who enjoy reading about life journies and / or are interested in military-market linkages.

Staff Managers vs. Task Managers

While working for a few organisations, both public and private, since 1998, I have worked for a wide variety of managers, and have observed many more in action. In this experience, I have come to believe that there are essentially two types of managers--those who primarily focus on managing the tasks executed by their staff and those who primarily focus on managing the staff that executes those tasks. This is critically important to me in my current role since, as a project manager, I am regularly involved in both task and staff planning and the successful alignment of the two.

Up front, I propose that organisations require a mix of both types of manager, but positioned in the correct roles and in the proper ratio based on operational needs. To distinguish why I feel this way, it is important for me to provide my definitions and characteristics of both manager types.

Task Managers - Driving Event-Specific Solutions

At a high level, the focus of task managers are deliverables and timelines. As long as these are met, the people involved are interchangeable as long as they get the job done. A staff's interaction with this type of manager most often revolves around the status of deliverables, updates on timelines, and task issue resolution. As a result, a staff member's relationship with the task manager rides the volatility of each task at hand. If your tasks are going well, deliverables are executed and timelines met, you may almost never hear from a task manager until the next staff meeting or until you are on a task for which they share direct responsibility.

Task managers are great when an organisation, team or project is in crisis, or is perhaps facing an unusual challenge. They are excellent at focusing individuals on the items at hand and the goals for the immediate future.

Staff Managers - Building Team and Organisational Foundations

Whereas task managers are out to ensure a task or assignment is executed properly, staff managers are concerned with the context in which members of a team or organisation are executing those tasks and how those tasks fit into the bigger picture, both short-term and long-term for each individual and, by extension, the team and organisation as a whole. Thus, the interaction between staff manager and individual staff members is focused on such things as work environment quality, training, organisational- or team-building activities, short- and long-term goals and aspirations, salary and benefits, and general feedback on the relationships between management and staff.

Staff managers ensure that, throughout the volatility and ups and downs of day-to-day tasks, individual staff members have a strong foundation to fall back on within their team and / or organisation.

*********************************************************************************************************************

With these definitions in mind, it is easier to understand why employing the right mix of the two manager types is key to an organisation's success. Having too many of either type will lead to different sets of problems - too many task managers will result in lower employee morale, burn out and eventual turnover of quality staff; too many staff managers will result in lower operational execution, weaker financial performance, and eventual downsizing of quality staff.

A final thought - can a manager successfully combine both types in the execution of their duties? From my experience, managers should try to adopt aspects of both types into their roles and responsibilities, but with the 80/20 rule in mind. A task manager should be incorporating the perspective of the staff manager as approximately 20% of what they do. Likewise, the staff manager should try to similarly incorporate the task manager perspective. This will ensure both manager types are not regularly in opposition on the critical needs of a team or organisation. If you try to get both types out of the same manager, that manager will regularly fail to live up to the expectations that individual staff members should have of them when in either role. In the end, it is up to the presidents, CEOs, directors, etc. of the organisation to ensure this does not happen.

The Fascinating Fall of Kevin Rudd

When I heard in 2007 that a Mandarin-speaking politician well-versed in Asia relations was elected as Prime Minister of Australia, I was living in Japan and understood almost nothing in regards to the Australian political scene beyond the fact that John Howard was previous Prime Minister. As a result, I was initially impressed and thought that this new PM would help strengthen Australia's integration with the rest of the Asia-Pacific.

Since moving to Australia at the end of 2008, I have gradually increased my knowledge of Australia, its people and by extension its politics. Particularly, once I bought a car here and started tuning in to the morning and evening news radio broadcasts, I have listened to many political events evolve in their daily detail and minutae. This includes an occasional listen to live parliamentary Q&A sessions between the political opposition--the Coalition--and the party currently in power-Labor. Although sometimes entertaining, these sessions seem to end up in adolescent-like, back-and-forth bickering that made me think these politicians deserved the title "The Kids in Canberra."

Up until recently, the two key political playground rivals were PM Kevin Rudd and current Coalition leader Tony Abbott. Unlike my initial impression that Mr. Rudd would be someone that worked above the fray in the manner of a diplomat with international clout, I ended up finding him to be more like a nerdy, condescending student council president that sought out every opportunity to look "cool" when he obviously wasn't. In opposition, Tony Abbott is the bombastic, sports jock that will often speak ahead of what he thinks, but seems preferable to his predecessor, Malcom Turnbull.

Recently, as has been prominent in the news, Mr. Rudd lost his position as PM and was decisively replaced by the calm and collected Julia Gillard. The story of Rudd's downfall is quite fascinating as momentum built for his removal--either by a newly called election or by an internal Labor coup. What is clear over the last year is that Mr. Rudd was never a true leader for Labor and had never truly solidified his support in the party. The Australian Financial Review published a cover story yesterday on how Rudd's downfall evolved and wrote this of his predicament:

"If there was a single theme to Rudd's political death, it was this: Rudd had foes everywhere. Once his support collapsed in the polls, there was nowhere to run. He had centered all government decision-making in his own office. Nothing could be delegated, no issue was too small for prime ministerial oversight.

"Rudd's ministers often became simple messengers and his oft-cited preoccupation with process and planning masked a chaotic government. All of these elements had frustrated his colleagues.

"Moreover, in his bid to eradicate factional control over ministries, Rudd had accorded to himself untrammelled power, which sat badly with his personal propensity for micro-management. He had a potty-mouth when angered and, according to some ministers, there were implied threats against those who failed to toe the line. Many ministers, fearful of losing favour and position, held their tongues. In the manner of both great tragedy and schoolyard brawls, Rudd had simply made too many enemies."

It is equally interesting how quickly Mr. Rudd has dropped from view and it seems few Australians could care less that he is out of view and now retreated back to his represented home of Queensland. In many ways, Mr. Rudd's problems the past year parallel the many problems faced by President Obama in the U.S. So I had to laugh when I heard the following quotes from the two meeting earlier this year in April at Fiji, via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

"O'Brien says during his 20-minute interview with Mr Obama, the US president shed some light on his relationship with Australia's Prime Minister. "It was interesting. Diplomats and politicians say nice things about each other when they're having international chats," O'Brien said.

"But O'Brien says Mr Obama spoke candidly about their relationship - which has in the past been described as a "meeting of minds". "He was quite expansive and quite genuine on what he saw as the commonality and connections between [he and Mr Rudd]. One of which was humility," O'Brien said."

President Obama calling former PM Rudd and himself humble is pure comedy and I am sure Obama said it with a straight face. In the end, everybody loved Kevin Rudd until everybody hated him. Now, this morning, new PM Gillard has called a general election for August 21st. The next few weeks are sure to be interesting for fellow news junkies here in Australia.

Thoughts on Developing Supply Chain Professionals

As I progress in my career with Manhattan Associates as part of Asia-Pacific operations, I regularly try to revisit some of the concepts and principles that I feel should guide me in developing the experience and skills that are required of a supply chain professional.

I would say that many in the supply chain industry, when framing what they require in their people, still focus on the traditional, functional roles of supply chain--transportation, warehousing, procurement, shipping, etc. I believe that this causes managers to fall into the trap of building an inflexible workforce and organizational structure that will struggle to adapt to supply chain initiatives that require working cross-functionally across these areas of business.

This scenario puts strain on supply chain people because they find themselves in "stretch roles" that consistently push them outside the range of responsibilities originally intended for and communicated to them based on an antiquated, narrow and traditional approach to human resources management. It would be nice if at least these stretch roles were recognized in hindsight and properly rewarded, but many organizations both lack the ability to properly evaluate their people in this situation and will often just happily accept these efforts as what was expected all along.

The above can be avoided by approaching the supply chain of a business, including its people, from the standpoint of supply chain architectures rather than functional roles and responsibilities. I have discussed these architectures extensively on this blog, but their importance has hit home for me again in the past few days as I have talked to a variety of supply chain people, both within Manhattan and those working for our clients.

Human architecture, the supply chain people, underlies every initiative a business can put forth--whether it is an investment in equipment, facilities, technology, new services or product development, etc. For a 3PL, an integrated logistics services solution may sound great as a pitch to customers, but all the technology, facilities and equipment in the world will mean nothing if your people aren't in place to deploy such a solution.

After people, a business should start its people thinking about how its physical and financial resources, or architectures, are deployed rather than zeroing in on trucks, warehouses, facilities, budgets, etc. off the bat. The whole idea is that resources are rationalized across a supply chain and not piece-meal, where imbalances can occur that negatively impact the end result of services and products provided to customers.

It is advances in and the procurement of informational architecture, primarily supply chain technology, that is driving the effort by many companies to challenge employees to think cross-functionally, to think in terms of general supply chain architecture rather than in terms of individual supply chain components. The problem with this is that technology can quickly get ahead of companies and their employees to the point that human resources management ends up "chasing the tail" of end-to-end supply chain restructuring. In the end, the progress of technology deployment will be as slow as the slowest caboose--which unfortunately in many cases is the constraint faced by under-developed competencies and capabilities of your supply chain people.

Only when the above hurdles are overcome can a business truly think about making advances in relational (think relationships with supply chain partners) and innovational (think new approaches to products and services via cross-functional analysis and critical thinking) architecture. But as long as the foundation of your supply chain activities, your supply chain people, have made the paradigm shift to understanding supply chain architecture, versus knowing simply the individual components of warehousing, transportation, shipping, etc. with the traditional overlaps, reaching this pinnacle is much closer to realisation.

***********************************************************************************************************************

As can be inferred above, mindset and attitude are key factors in developing supply chain professionals for the new paradigms of today's supply chain challenges. Cultivating this mindset means taking every opportunity available to illustrate the concepts that underly architecture-oriented thinking in supply chain. One simple and probably obvious concept is that, when providing a specialised service, a supply chain professional must be ahead of, or at least keep pace with, their customers' and clients' (both internal and external) knowledge in the field. Continued attention to detail of customer and client needs will ensure you keep pace with the services or products required. But it is innovation driven by analysis and critical thinking in response to daily issues and challenges that will allow you to provide additional value above and beyond that level.

I once drew this in a simple graph for a young Japanese colleague that had just left the university for a job with the 3PL I worked for in Tokyo. The graph posited the progression of time against the progression of knowledge, as shown below:

I told her that it was possible one could spend a few years in the wrong business environment and actually lose ground relative to peers across the supply chain industry (the Fall Behind line).  The next best case would be that you kept pace with not only your peers but the clients and customers demanding your product or services. Far better, you would stay ahead of that curve through seeking challenges, maintaining a learning curiosity both inside and outside of work, and making the necessary changes when it seemed like you were falling back to the "Keep Pace" line. I saw firsthand a friend in the same company realise only too late that they had been tracking along the "Fall Behind" line and thus presented a huge wake-up call when they had left the company and looked for new jobs. Some others in this category simply remained in the company because they new it was safer.

One comment by the president of that Japanese 3PL always stuck with me and summarised part of the problem he faced with his workforce at that time: If you are taking the same approach to your work today that was used last year, or in the years before, then you are that many years behind the curve.

*********************************************************************************************************************

I personally keep an eye on not only new opportunities at work but also new opportunities and ideas from outside work that will add value to my professional growth and provide that spark which takes me to the next level. Although what each of us chooses to do in developing as a supply chain professional may sometimes seem unorthodox as compared to traditional approaches, as long as our activities result in enhancing our understanding of the supply chain architectures that underly successful businesses today, we are well on our way to fulfilling our desired goals and vision for the future.

Update: Steve DeAngelis at the Enterprise Resilience Management Blog has more thoughts on this topic.

Manhattan Momentum 2010: At the Supply Chain Intersection

The most exciting thing about working for Manhattan Associates is the opportunity to positively impact the evolution of a client's business through supply chain improvement and innovation. As part of this experience, I am also in the position to have some impact internally on the evolution of the next generation of supply chain software by bridging R&D with the latest marketplace demands in Australia.

Coming up in a week is Manhattan's annual Momentum Conference, from May 2nd to May 5th. The theme is "Platform Thinking," which is nothing new from a general business management perspective. The use of platforms in the automotive vehicle production space dramatically changed the auto industry beginning in the late 20th Century, a practice defined as a "shared set of common design, engineering, and production efforts, as well as major components over a number of outwardly distinct models and even types of automobiles, often from different, but related marques."

So the question is: Why does this deserve attention now in the supply chain software space? When one examines all of the various touchpoints and activities in an end-to-end supply chain, the sheer scope and scale can be overwhelming. It is thus no surprise that many supply chain disciplines developed early on as responsibilities in smaller, manageable silos--manufacturing, procurement, transportation, warehousing, and POS fulfillment are the primary examples, and each can be further broken down into related activities. It is upon this market landscape that supply chain software has evolved as a wide range of offerings and solutions geared towards particular silos with some peripheral overlap. Manhattan Associates began this way with its WMS and has since developed a full suite of supply chain execution-oriented applications through acquisition, organic R&D efforts, and partnerships on a common platform.

I believe that "platform thinking" is about further removing the barriers in making significant gains in supply chain improvement and innovation. Where a variety of solutions have been available from a number of vendors for almost every primary supply chain activity in the past, the solutions and the decisions behind them have been disjointed from the standpoint of both business processes and the underlying system architecture. Many companies have had to make an amalgam of solutions work as their approach to managing human, financial and physical architecture in the supply chain evolved in advance of technology.

A perfect example of this evolution is a large company that internalises its supply chain functions and people into one business group (human / organisational), takes the next step to establish this group as a profit center which sells its supply chain services to the rest of the company's units (financial), and then begins to organize its assets around this framework (physical). This group will likely come together initially with disparate tools and systems around such services as transportation management, warehouse management, and ocean freight management. The ability to provide such a group with a suite of proven supply chain execution solutions on one platform clearly becomes an advantage in terms of overall deployment speed, quality and cost, as well as in post-implementation support and future upgrades. Integration with a single ERP system that spans the entire company's business units would also work from the same platform. End users, including internal customers, external customers and supply chain partners become linked together via a single networked interface. As a result, the platform solution becomes an enabler towards further strengthening relational (collaboration) and innovational (new ideas) supply chain architecture.

Momentum as an "Intersection"

I recently finished reading "The Medici Effect," an excellent book that explains how to create opportunities at the "intersection of ideas, concepts and cultures." For all those who attend Momentum 2010, it will indeed be an intersection worth taking advantage of towards taking your supply chains to the next level. Manhatta provides its own top 10 reasons for attending, but the truth is that an event that blends fellow Manhattan customers from around the world, product experts, technology partners and industry analysts all in one location is ripe for generating new insights and ideas into general supply chain practices as well as each attendee's own personal supply chain challenges.

Thinking Beyond Momentum

One of the things that blogs do for readers, and which Twitter does even better, is point us towards intersections. The list of individuals I have had the honor of sharing ideas with over the past few years via this blog has been fantastic and far more rewarding than I imagined at the start of my writing. With the advent of Twitter, the speed with which intersections are presented as increased tremendously. Recently, I came across another blogger who is an entrepreneur and, in my view, an intersection specialist--Valdis Krebs of The Network Thinker. Mr. Krebs has worked with IBM, with which Manhattan Associates is a key partner in deploying its Supply Chain Intelligence solution.

Once a company has deployed platform thinking from an informational architecture perspective, Mr. Krebs' work in network analysis seems perfect for the next leap in relational architecture, leading to as Mr. Krebs describes on his blog:

"...a focus on patterns of connectivity and self-organizing behavior in economic and social networks and how these new structures lead to resilience, adaptability, agility, transparency, and innovation."

These are all attributes that any supply chain professional aspires to internalise within their organisation, but this can only be done if we see the important linkages between our field and at first unrelated fields such as social network analysis in addition to driving existing skill sets and capabilities forward.

Imagine now if we take this network analysis approach devised by Mr. Krebs and apply it to not only our internal supply chain organisations and networks, but to industry wide supply chain networks in seeking a mutually beneficial reduction in total costs. In the article"Keeping Trucks Full, Coming and Going," New York Times writer Ken Belson examines one group executing upon such a goal:

"Some of the country’s largest retailers, manufacturers and trucking companies are working on a solution, sharing information about their trucking routes in hopes of matching empty trucks with goods that need to be shipped.

"Known as Empty Miles, the program is the brainchild of the Voluntary Interindustry Commerce Solutions Association, or VICS, a nonprofit group that tries to make the supply chain in consumer goods industries more efficient.

"For decades, companies have tried to eliminate empty truck miles in an ad hoc fashion. One company would hear about another company that shipped along the same route. One manager would call his counterpart and work out a deal. Then, about two years ago, VICS members representing a swath of corporate America bore down on the problem. Diesel fuel was near record highs; the economy was slowing. Running empty trucks was more and more the difference between profits and losses; running fewer trucks was a way to reduce emissions and help meet corporate sustainability goals.

""The economy is demanding that these trucks run with things in them," said Joe Andraski, the president and chief executive of VICS, which is based in Lawrenceville, N.J."

As Mr. Krebs network analysis tools would show, a critical mass of participants in such a program would drive the overall benefits. His tools could also provide critical information to participants where the service is providing the most benefit, towards which industry counterparts are shared routes most beneficial, as well as a number of other patterns important to supply chain decision-making. Please take a look at his post on "overlapping networks."

**********************************************************************************************************************

All-in-all, there is much to look forward to in the supply chain space that makes working in this industry, and across borders, an exceptional experience. I look forward to sharing more of this experience into the future both on the blog and via Twitter. Cheers!