GLOBALISATION, COMPETITIVENESS AND SUPPLY … · global sliver dominators (e.g. Novo, BU, SAP) ......

GLOBALISATION,COMPETITIVENESS AND SUPPLY

MANAGEMENT

Dr. Peter KraljičNovember 2017

Globalisation and CompetitivenessDr. Peter Kraljič

From purcasing to suply management -and beyond

1. The concept of purchasing portfolio matrix and supply management was developed as a result of first oil crisis in the early 70ies

2. The economic – and global – situation today is even more complex and volatile than in the 70ies

3. Political and business leaders – including supply managers - must therefore constantly search for new answers and solutions, beyond established paradigms

4. To find these answers, a comprehensive perspective and understanding of a globalized world is needed across several levels


Three Ingoing Theses

I. “Panta Rhei”: The whole world in process of constant –

and oft abrupt - change

II. Competitiveness: “Condition sine qua non” for success in globalised digital world

III. Business as unusual: New challenges also for supply management


“Panta Rhei”: Four major events over last 25 years

Crash of Communism and Disappearance of SSSR / Comecon

September 11 leading to a futile war against terrorism

Crash of Financial Capitalism, Economic Crisisand Erosion of belief in the free market forces

The „populism shock“ (America first, Brexit, etc.)

Underlying these events are some fundamental changes across several dimensions


“Panta Rhei”: Fundamental changesand developments across severaldimensions …

Politics: „the Thucydides dilemma“ / authoritarism Economy: progress and impact of globalisation Technology: exponential revolution / digitalisation Natural resources: growing scarcity /volatility Environment: global “hot house” and Fukushima effects Demography: long life and aging effects Culture: deepening tensions Cross-Crescent – Star of David Social: growing gap between rich and poor (EU: LVX. BL 1:14) Education: new skills / LLL Values: new expectations but also erosion of ethics / greed

… Leading to new scenarios, opportunities and challenges


Economy: Entry into globalised, post-industrial knowledge driven era

1. New rules and success factors of globalisation(e.g. distinctive skills, global brands, talent management and development)

2. New scenarios with “end-game” character(e.g. Boeing vs. Airbus, Iron Ore Trio)

3. New global winnersbig multis, increasingly also from BRIC (e.g. TATA, Gazprom, Chinese)global sliver dominators (e.g. Novo, BU, SAP)

4. New employment structures / trends- only 15 – 20 % industrial jobs sustainable (USA 17%, D 25%, H 30%,

SI 31%)- shifts between high and low cost countries - Future of agricultural jobs (USA 1,5%, IND 50%, RO 29%, SI 8%)


Multiple impact of globalisation

1. New opportunities access to new markets, customers and suppliers (e.g. Philips,

TATA - Nano) technological leapfrogging (e.g. China) global process optimisation (e.g. Toyota) global talent pool (e.g. McKinsey)

2. New challenges consolidation / concentration / takeovers constant change (e.g. delocalisation, downsizing) commoditisation of products (e.g. stainless) new transparency / expectations of “share-” and “stakeholders”



3. New risks fluctuations and volatility of demand and supply in financial

and raw materials markets (e.g. currencies, rare earths) brain drain and immigration object vs. subject – risks, even on country level

(e.g. ACS/HOCHTIEF, Croatia, Hungary, Iceland) global domino effects of financial crash (e.g. subprime –

Lehman – bailouts) leading to global crisis of real economy and then to Euro-crisis with a risk of ongoing European

erosion (Brexit, East vs. West)

Global Economy and Competitiveness 9Dr. Peter Kraljič


4. The impact of this crash was rather dramatic in Financial terms – cost of rescue, unemployment (e.g. Spain

over 20%, youth 50%) and market cap losses Economic terms – “business as unusual” with shift of demand

growth to developing countries Psychological terms – loss of trust into the system coupled

with growing fears of the populations Political terms – lost of trust into politicians and growing

differences/doubts among EU- members (SF #5, SI #133, I #139, ZIMBABVE #132, SING #1)

The impact varies of course from country to country and region to region



5. In this crisis context the economic situation in Europe and worldwide varied

Scandinavian countries and A/NL did reasonably well Export-oriented Germany suffered but has recovered quicker

than other big countries such as France or Italy, due to reforms and competitiveness of its export sectors

“Soft underbelly” of Europe: Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal is in trouble, despite all efforts undertaken so far

CEE-countries – with exception of Poland, where also shattered, now recovering at different pace

Russia suffered most among BRIC-countries, now in crisis again US / Japan recovered faster than EU


Globalisation is however only one key dimension

1. Future developments / trends are a mix of several dimensions e.g. environment protection not viable without technology (changes)

2. Impact can vary regionally and time-wise e.g. demography / aging population (EU vs. US)

3. Some changes also global, both short and long term e.g. financial crisis vs. global warming

4. Dealing with global changes, opportunities and challenges calls for competitiveness and sustainability across several decision levels, as the competitive entities mastered the crisis better/faster (e.g. NAFTA vs. EU, D vs. E, VW vs. PS)


II COMPETITIVENESS

I. Why be competitive: To survive, to win or to win-win?

II. Who should be competitive: Individuals,Corporations, Countries?

III. How to define competitiveness: Performance vs.Sustainability or both?

IV. What can supply management contribute: impact vs. supply security or both?

Thesis: COMPETITIVENESS AS „CONDITIO SINE QUA NON“IN A GLOBALISED WORLD


II. Competitiveness and sustainability in globalised world have to be ensured across six interrelated decision levels

1. Giga level = global impact

2. Mega level = major economic areas

3. Macro level = individual countries

4. Mezzo level = clusters (regions and/or sectors)

5. Micro level = corporations (incl. SME’s)

6. Nano level = individual units / people


In this context, EU-picture is mixed

1. Giga: part of G20, but not yet of G3 2. Mega: national interest still prevail, Maastricht criteria

broken, leading to present Euro – crisis / Brexit 3. Macro: mixed performance of individual states, ranging

from #5 (the Netherlands) to #59 (Croatia) 4. Mezzo: a number of good examples, but not a priority 5. Micro: best case with number of successful

international companies/global leaders 6. Nano: still behind USA (14 out of top 25 universities)


1. Giga level is so far not regulated /managed

Opportunities created through globalisation, technology revolution and institutions such as WTO or IMF and exploited by global corporations with adequate strategies, yet

Risks resulting from failures of existing powers / institutions UNO: failure in Darfur, Congo USA: eroding hyper-power position G20: diverging interest / nationalism

Mega risks due to the lack of global concepts / coherence hot-house effect: Kyoto protocol financial crisis / recession: G-20 efforts “yet financial markets” - exploding

again risk of currency war

Resource bottlenecks (arable land, water, rare earths …) Fazit: No global government / consensus


2. Mega level: competition vs. co-operation of different, often unstable economic areas

USA / NAFTA as (still) leading economic power EU so far not successful in reaching Lisbon strategy

objectives or dealing with Euro-crisis Transformation site Russia / EE / SEE, drifting toward

abyss Oil rich Middle East “War theatre” Japan and Pacific Rim (APEC) Growing powers China and India Volatile Mercosur (Brasil, Venezuela…) Resource rich Oceania (Australia, Indonesia) Forgotten continent Africa (with China interest)


EU competitiveness so far not ensured, due to divergent national interests and Euro-crisis

Objective: #1 economic area correct, yet implementation failing (e.g. R&D, investments, Maastricht-criteria, Euro-Crisis, Brexit)

Positive achievement: economic zone achieved in terms of goods and capital flows

Negative effects due to national divergences/ failings - Euro zone is not EU- growing debts and deficits as well as competitive differences- personal mobility of labour not ensured (e.g. Germany, Austria)- economic divergence / interests (e.g. agri-cultural subsidies, “patriotisme economique”, immigration…)

- political differences (e.g. Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, EU / NATOexpansion, austerity vs. Growth, dealing with Russia, Greece…)

- lack of leaders / role models Facit: A lot of progress in the past, now at breaking point


3. Macro level: competitiveness is not a question of size

Country competitiveness is an indicator not only of actual performance, but also of future growth, sustainability and progress of society

Two major international analyses with over 300 criteria- IMD: 63 countries- WEF: 144 countries

Both analyses show over time similar results- USA as a rule mostly within top 3 rank overall - Among top 15 countries as a rule some smaller countries from Europe and Asia (e.g. Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan)

BRIC and CEE countries with exception of China (No. 18) mostly in the middle or lagging


Competitiveness: two complementary approaches considering both, performance and sustainability

IMD WEFWITH IMD NOW

ADDING

I. Economic performance- International trade - Employment

I. Basic requirements- Institutions- Infrastructure

DIGITAL COMPETIVENESS:

• Knowledge• Technology• Future readiness

II. Government efficiency- Fiscal policy- Business laws- Societal framework

III. Business efficiency- Labor market - Productivity- Attitudes & Values

II. Efficiency enhancers- Higher education/training- Markets

GoodsLaborFinance

- Technological readiness

IV. Infrastructure- Technological/scientific- Education

III. Sophistication factors- Business- Innovation

Source: IMD Source: WEF Source: IMD 2017


COMPETITIVENESS - WISE FOUR PERFORMANCE GROUPS WITHIN EU

1st QUARTILE 2017 2nd QUARTILE 2017 3rd QUARTILE 2017 4th QUARTILE 2017

5 - S (4) 9

6 - D (9) 13

16 - UK (18) 19

18 - SF (20) 15

34 - LIT (31) 33

36 - PL (33) 38

45 - SLK (47) 51

46 - I (44) 44

43 - P (46) 39

48 - H (50) 52

9 - DK (12) 7

11 - LUX (16) 8

14 - NL (14) 5

15 - IRL (17) 6

22 - A (23) 25

28 - B (26) 23

27 - F (28) 31

33 - CZ (35) 28

36 - EST (31) 30

55 - SI (52) 43

57 - GR (54) 57

47 - RO (55) 50

1 - USA (1) 4

2 - CH (2) 2

30 - EST (36) 3017 - AUS (16) 21

23 - CHI (24) 18

35 - LAT (41) 40

44 - I (40) 44

39 - E (45) _ 34

56 - BLG (57) 49

59 - CRO (58)_ 59

54 - BR (51) 61

3 - SING (5) 34 - HK (3) 1

7 - CAN (7) 12

10 - N (6) 11

26 - KOR (22) 29

21 - JAP (24) 2644 - IND (40) 45

38 - RUS (42) 46

41 - MEX (32) 48

52 - SAF (53) 53

Source: IMD (2015/16/17)


Example IMD: Competitiveness Factors

I. EconomicPerformance

II. Government Efficiency

III. Business Efficiency Structure

IV. Infra

No.1. USAH 57, SI 47, CZ 19

HKH 57, SI 42, CZ 29

HKH 63, SI 48, CZ 34

CHH 46, SI 31, CZ 18

Domestic Economy: ChinaH 53, SI 49, CZ 41

Public Finance: IcelandH 50, SI 45, CZ 18

Productivity & Efficiency: IrelandH 51, SI 27, CZ 30

Basic IF: IcelandH 53, SI 31, CZ 18

International Trade: SingaporeH 18, SI 15, CZ 13

Fiscal Policy: QatarH 57, SI 54, CZ 45

Labor Market: ChinaH 62, SI 53, CZ 44

Technological IF:SingaporeH 53, SI 44, CZ 26

International Investments: USAH 45, SI 58, CZ 36

Institutional Framework:CHH 55, SI 44, CZ 26

Finance: HKH 59, SI 55, CZ 32

Scientific IF: USAH 56, SI 31, CZ 28

Employment: ChinaH 58, SI 52, CZ 25

Business Legislation: HKH 59, SI 39, CZ 35

Management Practice: UAEH 63, SI 44, CZ 34

Health & Environment:NorwayH 33, SI 28, CZ 31

Prices: SARH 43, SI 6, CZ 15

Societal Framework: NorwayH 36, SI 19, CZ 29

Attitudes & Values: UAEH 63, SI 56, CZ 39

Education: FinlandH 44, SI 23, CZ 31

Source: IMD 2017, Base; 63countries


3. Macro level: Importance of HR and coherentactions

Both analyses also confirm the importance of human resources in the context of interplay education, innovation, productivity and values

- USA and Switzerland mostly leading in area ofscience, research and innovation

- Scandinavian countries and Singapore often ahead in areas of education, technology and values

- China, India and Singapore with gains in productivity

Both analyses confirm also that competitiveness is not a question of country size, but rather a result of coherent actions on political, educational and corporate levels


On Macro-level government can influence competitiveness

COMPETITIVE LEVEL BEST IN EU D F HR SI CZ

1. Competitive legal framework # 4 DK 18 53 60 56 42

2. Government adaptability to economic change # 3 LUX 24 57 59 52 47

3. Low bureaucracy # 5 DK 25 51 59 49 32

4. Openness to foreign investors # 1 IRL 8 30 41 45 13

5. Fair competition laws # 3 DK 14 25 56 49 38

6. Ease of doing business # 5 DK 28 53 60 50 47

7. Open immigration laws # 4 B 24 12 52 45 38

8. Labor regulations # 2 DK 39 58 52 56 43

9. Low protectionism # 2 IRL 16 33 56 40 19

10. Corporate taxes # 3 IRL 21 55 58 33 20

Overall competitiveness # 5 S 12 32 58 43 27

Source: IMD 2016


4. Mezzo level is often neglected, despite its often growing importance

Globalisation leads to concentration and often to deep and radical change of individual sectors

- example China: steel, textile exports, solar energy, ICE Regions are competing - also within individual countries – for (F)DI

and often show significant differences regarding growth and value creation

- examples: France, Germany, Italy Clusters play an increasing role at the interface macro-micro level

and lead to important growth and job / value creation effects (e.g. Wolfsburg)

Global rankings exist as well (source: WEF): No. 1 Italy, No. 2 Taiwan, No. 3 Germany, No. 14 Norway

CEE lagging: No. 47 Czech Rep. No. 96 Slovenia, No. 115 Serbia, No. 129 Bulgaria


5. Micro level remains decisive for sustainable progress of states and regions

Growth and value creation of each country depends upon an adequate mix of globally competitive companies, also from smaller and now BRIC countries

- big MNC as growth engines (e.g. Ikea, Arla, Maersk, Nestlé, Embraer)

- midsize companies as leaders of global slivers (e.g. Novo, VA-Tech, Böhler-Uddeholm)

- Hidden Champions: SME’s and start ups as drivers of innovation and job creation (e.g. Silicon valley, North Italy, Slovenia -Akrapovič, Kolektor, Pipistrel)

“Conditio sine qua non” is not the size of domestic market but global competitiveness based upon coherent vision / strategy and constant change optimizing four key corporate levers


6. Last but not least: Nano = individual andeducational level

Demands of knowledge driven economy coupled with globalisation effects lead to new challenges

- winning war for talent- reducing brain drain risk- managing delocalisation / outsourcing- dealing with polarisation of high vs. low value added jobs

Europe needs additional investments and new concepts - beyond Pisa / Bologna- constant knowledge upgrading- motivating youth for jobs with future potential (e.g. engineering, sciences)- concepts / mentality of LLL- training and reskilling

Goal: ensuring “cutting edge” skills / know how, particularly in CEE


III. Business as unusual:

1. Business environment is changing

Business as unusual, due to global trends / shifts From growth to competitiveness and sustainability From stability to volatility and crisis management From linear to exponential

Resulting in new challenges for management, also in supply area


Business as unusual: new challenges for management

2. Two types of Economy Replacement Economy Driven by “dramatic innovation” (e.g. phones, services) Typical for developed countries

First Buy Economy Driven by need / new purchasing power Typical for emerging markets / CEE Led by BRICs


Business as unusual: new challenges for management

3. As consequence, business models and focus have to be restructured and/or adapted

1980’ies: working better → Reengineering 1990’ies: working cheaper → Outsourcing 2000: working elsewhere → Globalisation Since 2010: working „at cutting edge“ → Digital

Competitiveness


Leading in turbulent times: Management tasks

4. Double effect of transition and volatility underlines the importance of coherent concept and actions across four key corporate levers

Strategy: clear & sustainable competitive advantage Organization: above threshold of aspirations and trust Operations: ensuring „CI-distinctiveness“ Human Resources: talent and leaders development


Organisation: Stars vs. happy underperformance

Mentalcontext

Threshold of aspirations

Low

Low

Crisis

Most companies

Happy underperformers

Threshold of trust

Social context

Stars example:NUCOR


III. Business as unusual: new challenges and opportunities also for supply management

5. Supply management key for future competitiveness ofmost companies

Controlling 50 – 80% of corporate spends Need to avoid future supply bottlenecks and risks Responsible to develop sustainable supply strategies

Considering Mega-trends / volatility of supply markets Understanding competitiveness criteria and status of your

competitors, suppliers and customers across the whole value chain

Developing correct, trust based supplier relations Acting as intermediary between corporate/ divisional/ regional

demands and your supply markets


III. Business as unusual: new challengesalso for supply management

Example: Mega-trends / volatility

Growing commodity prices: example 1999-2009

- Nickel +94% - Copper +269%- Corn +104% - Sugar +270%- Gas +108% - Iron ore +300%- Oil +202% - Gold +308%

- Lead +378%


Examples of competitiveness criteria:Supply focus (primary)Local suppliers

quantityLocal suppliers

qualityCluster

developmentDegree of customer

orientation

Buyer’s sophistication

1. J 1. J 1. I 1. J 1. J

2. D 2. CH 2. TAIWAN 2. CH 3. CH

3. UK 3. A 3. D 3. A 4. F

5. CH 4. D 5. NZ 4. S 8. UK

8. USA 7. DK 8. J 10. DK. 12. S

10. ITALY 8. USA 12. SING 14. USA 11. CHINA

15. A 10. TAIWAN 14. NORWAY 18. S 15. D

18. F 12. NORWAY 16. A 19. NORWAY 18. CHINA

24. CHINA 16. F 20. S 20. D 19. NORWAY

29. DK 22. CZ 25. CHINA 41. F 32. F

76. NORWAY 63. CHINA 32. F 70. CHINASource: WEF 2014/15


Examples of competitiveness criteria:Supply focus (secondary)

Capacity for innovation

PCT patents (per mio pop.)

Unique competitive advantage

Production process

sophistication

Ethical behaviours of

firms1. CH 1. CH 1. JAPAN 1. CH 1. NZ

2. NZ 2. J 2. CH 2. JAPAN 2. SF

3. ISRAEL 3. S 3. DK 3. SF 3. SING.

4. D 4. SF 4. SF 4. D 4. DK

5. SF 5. ISRAEL 5. B 5. NL 5. CH

6. S 6. D 7. D 6. NORWAY 6. NORWAY

8. DK 11. USA 11. NL 7. USA 12. S

16. NORWAY 12. SING 12. SING 8. S 16. D

18. SING. 15. F 14. USA 14. DK 24. F

28. CZ 23. SI 15. S 17. F 33. USA

40. CHINA 34. CHINA 18. NORWAY 56. CHINA 55. EST

SOURCE: WEF 2014/1545. CHINA 105. I


III. Business as unusual: new challengesalso for supply management

6. International companies already early on restructuring their supply function in order to cope with crisis, example: EIPM survey 2010

87 participants 9 finalists

- Delphi - Kone - Schindler- Henkel - Michelin - ST-micro- Janssen - Nokia - Volvo

Similarly in 2011/12: Winner Sanofi Finalists 2014: Bosch, Jotun, SAP


Award Winners 2010-2016

ABB Robotics ArcelorMittal Atlantic Grupa Bosch CP-AB5 CERN Clariant Delphi Automotive LLP EADS Deutschland GmbH Eandis EDP Ericsson AB – Business Unit Networks Essilor Grundfos Henkel AG & co. Kg Infrabel

Janssen Pharmaceuticals (J&J)* Jotun Kone L‘Oréal* Lyonnaise des Eaux Michelin Nokia Corporation NV Bekaert SA* Sagemcom Sanofi SAP Saudi Telecom Company STMicroelectronics NV Toyota Motor Europe Vodafone*

(*) Bekaert, Janssen, L‘Oréal and Vodafone won 2 Awards each.Source: EIPM


III. Business as unusual: new challenges also for supply management

7. Some key observations 8/9 companies transformed and upgraded their procurement

organization in the last 5 years All are considered as strategic and have regular performance reviews

at top level CEO/EXCOM Clear Vision and Mission statements are in place All are global and have strategic sourcing teams Category procurement with x-functional teams is the norm Everywhere TCO metrics, few on value creation through whole

supply chain Supplier segmentation drives specific SRM activities, including

collaboration and joint development (still rare) CSR increasingly on key priority lists Most often customer feedback is collected informally

Source: EIPM



8. The survey used EFQM – excellence module approach focusing upon …

Key enablers:leadership, strategy, people, partnership, processes

Key results/impact:value creation, SRM, innovation, CSR, people development, riskmanagement, digitalisation, sustainability…

…showing predominantly above average ratings fortop performers



9. More importantly, all finalists apply a number of best practices showing both Coherence of approaches in areas of SRM, CSR and

innovation but also Variety of approaches in areas of value creation and

people development

…demonstrating thus how to handle the supply management as core function of the future.


Examples of best practices: Coherence of approaches

SRM- Global SRM – process- Supplier segmentation- Supplier surveys / evaluation

CSR- State of art initiatives- Sustainable excellence concept / targets

- Ethics - based- EHS - criteria

- Code of conduct compliance

INNOVATION- Co-development / partnerships with suppliers- X-functional product innovation- Mega-trends / innovation-gate based concepts


Examples of best practices: Variety of approaches

VALUE CREATION

- Supply performance targets linked to corporateobjectives

- Joint TCO-projects and improvement targets- Common X-functional sourcing objectives- Contribution to top-line-growth-concept- Factory margin improvement concept- KAM-concept

PEOPLEDEVELOPMENT

- Talent management program- Corporate purchasing university / campus- Structured T & D – programs- Global competency / skills modules and assessments

- PDP linked to personal business plans and KPI –cascades

- Sourcing excellence awards / perception surveys


EIPM: 5 Purchasing Maturity Levels

Individual goals - Functional Joint goals and processes

-1-TransactionalBring Savings

Process/operationimprovements

-2-Support functionBring TCO at each

step of the businessprocess (R&R, MKT,…)Reactive, no external

customer focus

-3-Partnering function

Part of crossfunctional teams with

cross functionalexpertise

-4-Networking operatorProactive approach to suppliers & partners

for innovation & integration

-5-Core function

To achieve companygoals and createincreased value

Purchasing Centric Customer and Value CentricSource: EIPM


III. OUTLOOK: Uncertainties to continue….

10. Despite progress and growth, 2018 will most likely still be demanding, also for supply chain management, as multiple uncertainties exist, particularly in Western Europe, but alsoincreasingly in the East and USA

Impact of „America first“ Chinese growth/ambitions EU-crisis continues due to Brexit, unclear governance, and differing

national interests/performance (D vs. F) High debts and downgrading risks remain High unemployment, particularly young generation Population concerns and social unrest / immigration issues Uncontrolled „war threaths“ (Ukraine, Gaza, North Korea, „Caliphate“)


III. OUTLOOK: Uncertainties to continue….

11. Medium term-beyond 2018-we should however hope for apolitical common sense with the recovery and digital growth, driven by developing countries, particulary China and India, and also by revitalized USA as well as EU. Example: Europe 2020 competitiveness index (WEF) Example: Digital competitiveness (IMD)

12. Longer term the development of global economy will move between two extreme scenarios of globalisation wave, dependingupon adequate actions happening on giga-level / by great powers


EUROPE 2020 COMPETITIVENESS INDEX

KEY AREA SF DK KEY PILLAR SF DK

I. SMART GROWTH

1 6

1. Enterprise Environment2. Digital Agenda3. Innovative Europe4. Education & Training

2111

11538

II. INCLUSIVE GROWTH2 1

5. Labour market &Employment

6. Social Inclusion

6

1

1

4

III. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH2 5

7. Environmental Sustainability

2 5

Source: WEF 2014, 28 EU countries + benchmark countries

OVERALL: SF 1 / DK 4


Digital Competitiveness as the next challenge

TOP 10 CEE OTHER COUNTRIES1. Singapore (1) 26. Estonia (27) 11. UK (12)2. Sweden (3) 29. Lithuania (29) 16. Austria (19)

3. USA (2) 32. Czech Republic (32) 17. Germany (15)4. Finland (6) 34. Slovenia (36) 22. Belgium (18)

5. Denmark (8) 35. Latvia (33) 25. France (22)

6. The Netherlands (4) 37. Poland (38) 27. Japan (23)7. Hong Kong (11) 43. Slovakia (41) 31. China (35)8. Switzerland (7) 44. Hungary (42) 42. Russia (40)

9. Canada (5) 45. Bulgaria (47) 51. India (53)10. Norway (9) 48. Croatia (44) 55. Brasil (54)

Source: IMD 2017



Knowledge Technology Future readiness1. Singapore (1)2. Sweden (2)3. Canada (7)

4. Switzerland (3)5. USA (4)

1. Singapore (1)2. Norway (3)

3. Hong Kong (2)4. Finland (7)5. Sweden (6)

1. Denmark (6)2. USA (1)

3. The Netherlands (2)4. Finland (5)5. Sweden (8)

13. Germany (10)23. China (24)24. Russia (28)

26. Slovenia (26)36. Czech Republic (34)

50. Croatia (45)

21. Germany (25)26. Czech Republic (26)

36. China (36)40. Slovenia (40)44. Russia (47)47. Croatia (43)

18. Germany (14)34. China (38)

36. Slovenia (35)37 Czech Republic (34)

52. Russia (53)56. Croatia (50)

Source: IMD 2017



Knowledge Technology Future readinessSINGAPORE SINGAPORE DENMARKTalent: Singapore

No.2: CHHR: 52CZ: 26SI: 37

Regulatory frame: SingaporeNo.2: Finland

HR: 52CZ: 26SI: 37

Adaptive attitude: DKNo.2: USA

HR: 43CZ: 42SI: 37

Training and education: SwedenNo.2: Estonia

HR: 41CZ: 49SI: 17

Capital: CanadaNo.2: USA

HR: 52CZ: 15SI: 40

Business agility: UAENo.2: Ireland

HR: 62CZ: 33SI: 43

Scientific concentration: USANo.2: Israel

HR: 35CZ: 34SI: 24

Technological frame: SingaporeNo.2: Korea

HR: 40CZ: 15SI: 44

IT-integration: SingaporeNo.2: Finland

HR: 46CZ: 33SI: 30

Source: IMD 2017


OUTLOOK: Two Extreme Globalisation Scenarios

BEST CASE: SOFT GLOBALISATION

WORST CASE: WILD GLOBALISATION

- Balanced growth - Weak growth- Reduction of global imbalances - Growing global imbalances- Reduction of deficits - Conflicts between in-debted states

and financial markets- Consolidation of debts/socialburdens

- Volatility of currencies

- Progress of developing countries - Social unrests in developedcountries

- Progress in energy/environmentareas

- Energy bottlenecks / climate issues

- Functioning globalgovernance / Integration

- New protectionism / war threats

Source: Globalisation-2nd Wave, NZZ-Verlage (Flückiger Schwab), November 2011


FAZIT

1. In a volatile globalized world competitiveness is becoming a “conditio sine qua non” for success, not only on corporate, but also on individual or country / society level

2. To meet the future opportunities and challenges it will take a more holistic approach to competitiveness, understanding and acting upon necessary levers across several interrelated levels, from nano to giga.


FAZIT

3. On corporate level, beyond classical levers of competitiveness, the HR-Quadriga: education, innovativeness, productivity and values will be of increasing importance for sustainable competitive performance / position

4. In this context supply management function must play a key interface role for both suppliers and other corporate functions in terms of overall value chain optimisation

5. Supply managers have already achieved a lot, but given the volatile outlook, even more has to be done to make our corporations and individuals truly competitive in a global sense.

GLOBALISATION, COMPETITIVENESS AND SUPPLY … · global sliver dominators (e.g. Novo, BU, SAP) ......

Documents

Transcript of GLOBALISATION, COMPETITIVENESS AND SUPPLY … · global sliver dominators (e.g. Novo, BU, SAP) ......