F4SS IR Team

Meeting Minutes Oct 10th, 2018

Next Meeting Nov 14th, 2018 -2 PM EST

Zoom Meeting

Thank you for your participation

Attendees

John Nienhuis – Creative Werks

Don Sciolaro – F4SS

Dave Hempson – F4SS

Excused

Lance Olmsted – Red Zone

Annette Cutchens – Coregistics – Team Co- Leader

Brittany - TBD

Oscar Uzcategui – GoJo -Team Co-Leader

Gary Moffatt – F4SS BOD Sponsor

Jim Bandelow – Creative Werks

Jess Malvin -General Mills

Bill Messmer- General Mills

Jon Gordon – GoJo

Carolina Velez – Kimberly Clark

Todd Caraway -Continental Mills

Tom Kent – Kimberly Clark

Paul Statchuk – Nulogy

Sheri De Vries – Continental Mills

Lori Vilkanskas-Continental Mills

Chris Conley – Continental Mills

David Graber -Continental Mills

Cathy Montplaiser – Continental Mills

Matt O’Conner – Rockline Industries

Oct 10th 2018 meeting minutes

A. Recruitment -client stakeholder – reach out to new folks at our participating F4SS companies that can we can provide value to recruit new members.

B. Reconciliation Pilot – develop cost model to help team evaluate long term value for this new tool

C. Consultants – explore consultants that can offer value in areas we do not have the expertise

D. Target Mid-size suppliers/customers that could profit from the team’s tools and development expertise

The IRT reviewed the 5 pillars required for successful customer/supplier execution

5 pillars include: a. Contract -reviewed annually – (Draft Contract on the F4SS Site for

reference) b. SLED – reviewed QTRLY – (SLED model on the F4SS Site) c. Scorecard – QTRLY Review – (Score Card on the F4SS Site) d. Loss Elimination - continuous improvement approach with milestones - e. Trust and a collaborative relationship where both the customer and

supplier work to support each other – (TAC Team Tool on the F4SS website)

1. Based upon input from the team there is a need to upgrade supplier performance across these categories to meet the expectations of their customers in an ever-changing e-commerce/omni channel retail market place:

A. Faster response time to demand changes, greater agility from suppliers to accommodate demand changes -John Neinhaus, Jim Bandelow Solutions: a. To accommodate the agility required in the omni channel -e-commerce

world a completed SLED agreement is a mandatory requirement -define rules -bridge communication gaps

b. Sufficient trust to permit a VMI (vendor managed inventory) relationship is critical to success

c. Develop individual inventory management requirements for specific programs – once size does not fit all programs/skus – subset products manufactured based upon volatility, promotional nature, and other extenuating factors

d. Develop a robust communication process - both internally and externally to react to demand changes – leverage technology and tools available to facilitate rapid communication –

e. Create an S&OP (sales and operations planning) process that reacts much faster to demand changes

f. All stakeholders within an organization must interlock their communications insuring demand changes are conveyed to suppliers as quickly as possible enabling suppliers to adapt more quickly

B. Focus on loss-elimination and cost reduction – safe-guarding profit while reducing waste - Oscar Uzcategui, Jon Gordon Solutions: a. The customer must generate data to support the targets established

for loss elimination – loss elimination can be an 18-month cycle b. Ideation Session – develop strategies and tactics to address loss

reduction opportunities – data must be available by line, by SKU

c. Data to be presented includes: Historical forecasts by SKU, Component lead-times and costs, line rates, shift through-put, QA samples taken for testing,

d. True Cost Analysis – develop protocols to generate a true cost analysis -taking into account all losses - inefficiencies, scrap, samples, line stops, material ordering patterns, inventory cost, etc., to provide a clear picture of where to address losses.

e. Establish focused loss elimination teams that can analyze the data generated and begin to leverage strategies and tactics to address.

f. Teams must be open minded and look for all options to reduce loss – including new packaging formats, equipment re-configurations, nothing is off the table.

C. Strategies to create smaller MOQ’s to reduce inventory carrying cost and

obsolescence - Sheri De Vries, Lori Vilkanskas, Chris Conley, David Graber, Todd Caraway Cathy Montplaiser Solutions: 1. Focus on sub-set of SKU’s that can be used to develop strategies and

practices that will accommodate this need 2. Late stage customization – drive collaboration with

sales/marketing/operations/engineering to develop products that leverage late stage customization opportunities.

3. Surge Capacity -develop processes that allow for surge capacity -extra sets of tooling -skilled temp work force – automation

D. Greater flexibility - Right mix of products at the right time - Jess Malvin, Bill Messmer Solutions: TBD

E. Faster and more accurate data exchange from both the customer and the supplier ahead of any digitization process – Streamlined forecast/demand process allowing for greater flexibility and response time -Paul Statchuk Solutions: TBD

F. Development of a tool to support suppliers through the development of a no-touch replenishment process. Tom Kent, Carolina Velez Solutions:

TBD

August 16, 2018

2. Based upon input from the team there is a need to upgrade supplier performance across these categories to meet the expectations of their customers in an ever-changing e-commerce/omni channel retail market place:

3. To help drive engagement and participation please review your assignment and come prepared to discuss at our next call

G. Faster response time to demand changes, greater agility from suppliers to accommodate demand changes -John Neinhaus, Jim Bandelow

H. Strategies to create smaller MOQ’s to reduce inventory carrying cost and

obsolescence - Sheri De Vries, Lori Vilkanskas, Chris Conley, David Graber, Todd Caraway Cathy Montplaiser

I. Greater flexibility - Right mix of products at the right time - Jess Malvin, Bill

Messmer

J. Faster and more accurate data exchange from both the customer and the supplier ahead of any digitization process – Streamlined forecast/demand process allowing for greater flexibility and response time -Paul Statchuk

K. Focus on loss-elimination and cost reduction – safe-guarding profit while

reducing waste - Oscar Uzcategui, Jon Gordon

L. Development of a tool to support suppliers through the development of a no-touch replenishment process. Tom Kent, Carolina Velez

5 pillars include f. Contract -reviewed annually – Draft Contract on the F4SS Site g. SLED – reviewed QTRLY – SLED on the F4SS Site h. Scorecard – QTRLY Review – Score Card on the F4SS Site i. Loss Elimination - continuous improvement approach with milestones -

TBD j. Trust and a collaborative relationship where both the customer and

supplier work to support each other – TAC Team Tool

July 11th Meeting Minutes

Team Vision – The Integrated Replenishment team will focus on how supply chains must evolve to meet the demands of a very dynamic e-commerce/omni channel market. The team will work to find new technological solutions to old

problems, engaging with thought leaders in the areas of replenishment, forecasting and supply chain reliability.

M. The team reviewed a process to automate material reconciliations for full service customer supplier relationships.

a. The team will review the draft brief on what would be expected. b. If the initiative has sufficient value the team will develop pilot

opportunities to test the automation of this reconciliation process. c. There is no cost to engage in the pilot

Draft Brief for pilot – approved

The F4SS IRT in collaboration with Nulogy – Network of Networks – and Boardwalk Tech is interested in executing a pilot with F4SS members to test the automation of material reconciliations required for full service contracts

Brief (Draft)

Full Service Contracts

1. Full Service -Turn Key – the supplier purchases the materials required to build the finished goods from raw material suppliers of the supplier’s choice – quoted costs are established for the raw materials

2. Full Service -Directed Buy – the supplier purchases the materials required to build the required finished goods from raw materials suppliers directed by the customer with pre-negotiated pricing -the quoted/directed buy costs are supplied by the customer to the supplier.

3. True-Up – at the end of a period – (usually a quarter) – the actual cost of the materials is compared to the quoted cost (or directed-buy cost basis) for the materials issued to the appropriate work orders.

4. Reconciliation – a detailed comparison of the actual PO costs for the materials utilized vs the standard cost/directed-buy cost -

5. Variables – a. PO quantity variation based upon customer demand fluctuations b. Gang printing savings vs. single run c. MOQ -minimum order quantity resulting in residual materials d. Variability in raw material costs due to commodity cost changes e. Residual materials purchased to meet customer demand

requirements, demand changes stranding materials f. Directed-buy costs from different raw material suppliers g. Transportation cost changes – fuel surcharges for instance h. If there is a material mark-up or administrative fee applied to the

materials, this cost must be excluded

Brief

The IRT would be interested in an automated block chain application to provide F4SS members with a quarterly reconciliation comparing the cost of materials consumed as compared to the quoted/directed buy costs established in the quoted pricing.

The reconciliation would have to track the cost for the materials purchased as compared to the quoted cost established for the materials consumed within the quarter.

The reconciliation would provide objective, verifiable evidence for all transactions within the timeframe established.

A preliminary reconciliation each month would alert both supplier and customer of any significant changes in raw material costs – for example, any single component cost change over 10% would trigger a notification, leading to an investigation if warranted.

The team discussed a case study and pilot to develop the process.

Questions included

1. Evaluate F4SS supplier’s willingness to allow tech participants access to ERP systems -what protections that would be made available?

2. Target suppliers already working with Nulogy for a pilot -less of a barrier to entry to ascertain the data needed

3. What are the technical requirements a supplier would have to meet to participate?

4. If this tool is developed -what would the cost be to participate on an annual basis for a supplier?

5. Would this tool adapt to a variety of ERP systems? Follow up activities:

N. The team reviewed options for the IRT to participate in CI Connect conference Oct. 1,2,3rd -Ideas included:

a. A Rockline presentation providing the supplier perspective of vender managed inventory -Oscar to determine if they will prepare a presentation – Need feedback from Oscar -the team supports this option

b. Nulogy Presentation -the team agreed to a Nulogy/Network of Network presentation.

c. Smuckers presentation demonstrating how Ariba was deployed to improve supply chain performance -Dave to reach out to Smuckers to gauge interest -No response from Smuckers outreach regarding their use of Ariba – Oscar will follow

O. The team reviewed ideas to improve attendance and membership for the

team a. Expand brand owner engagement b. Insure team objectives are compelling and addressing relevant issues c. Reach out to team-members prior to meetings to encourage

participation

June 13th Meeting Minutes

Team Vision – The Integrated Replenishment team will focus on how supply chains must evolve to meet the demands of a very dynamic e-commerce/omni channel market. The team will work to find new technological solutions to old

problems, engaging with thought leaders in the areas of replenishment, forecasting and supply chain reliability.

P. The meeting began with a presentation by Nulogy – Network of Networks and Boardwalk Tech describing a process to automate material reconciliations for full service customer supplier relationships.

Next Steps:

d. The team will draft a brief on what would be expected. Please edit draft as needed by June 29th

e. Team members that were unable to attend will provide their thoughts on the value of this initiative

f. If the initiative has sufficient value the team will develop pilot opportunities to test the automation of this reconciliation process.

g. There is no cost to engage in the pilot

Draft Brief for pilot

The F4SS IRT in collaboration with Nulogy – Network of Networks – and Boardwalk Tech is interested in executing a pilot with F4SS members to test the automation of material reconciliations required for full service contracts

Brief (Draft)

Full Service Contracts

6. Full Service -Turn Key – the supplier purchases the materials required to build the finished goods from raw material suppliers of the supplier’s choice – standard costs are established for the raw materials

7. Full Service -Directed Buy – the supplier purchases the materials required to build the required finished goods from raw materials suppliers directed by the customer with pre-negotiated pricing -the standard costs are supplied by the customer to the supplier.

8. True-Up – at the end of a period – (usually a quarter) – the actual cost of the materials is compared to the standard cost (or directed buy cost basis) for the materials issued to the appropriate work orders.

9. Reconciliation – a detailed comparison of the actual PO costs for the materials utilized vs the standard cost/directed buy cost -

10. Variables – i. PO quantity variation based upon customer demand fluctuations j. Gang printing savings vs. single run k. MOQ -minimum order quantity resulting in residual materials l. Variability in raw material costs due to commodity cost changes m. Residual materials purchased to meet customer demand

requirements, demand changes stranding materials n. Directed buy costs from different raw material suppliers o. Transportation cost changes – fuel surcharges for instance

p. If there is a material mark-up or administrative fee applied to the materias, this cost must be excluded

Brief

The IRT would be interested in an automated block chain application to provide F4SS members with a quarterly reconciliation comparing the cost of materials consumed as compared to the standard costs established in the quoted pricing.

The reconciliation would have to track the cost for the materials purchased as compared to the standard established for the materials consumed within the quarter.

The reconciliation would provide objective, verifiable evidence for all transactions within the timeframe established.

A preliminary reconciliation each month would alert both supplier and customer of any significant changes in raw material costs – for example, any single component cost change over 10% would trigger a notification, leading to an investigation if warranted.

The team discussed a case study and pilot to develop the process.

Questions included

6. Evaluate F4SS supplier’s willingness to allow tech participants access to ERP systems -what protections that would be made available?

7. Target suppliers already working with Nulogy for a pilot -less of a barrier to entry to ascertain the data needed

8. What are the technical requirements a supplier would have to meet to participate?

9. If this tool is developed -what would the cost be to participate on an annual basis for a supplier?

10. Would this tool adapt to a variety of ERP systems? Follow up activities:

Q. The team reviewed options for the IRT to participate in CI Connect conference Oct. 1,2,3rd -Ideas included:

d. A simulation – like the Beer Game to drive home the thought process needed to adapt to the e-commerce market place -Annette to lead the investigation for options – No success to date

e. A review of the SLED or other topics in a break-out session that help F4SS members adopt the tools we have developed – TBD

f. How to use problem solving tools developed by the team g. A Rockline presentation providing the supplier perspective of vender

managed inventory -Oscar to determine if they will prepare a presentation – Need feedback

h. An Ariba/Nulogy presentation demonstrating how digitization of replenishment can improve supply chain management and what is required to embark on this journey – Don-Oscar set up a time to explore – Difficultly making contact -Oscar can you support please

i. Smuckers presentation demonstrating how Ariba was deployed to

improve supply chain performance -Dave to reach out to Smuckers to gauge interest -No response from Smuckers outreach regarding their use of Ariba

Past discussions -Summary

R. The team discussed development of an approach to support suppliers through the development of a no-touch replenishment process. 5 pillars include k. Contract -reviewed annually l. SLED – reviewed QTRLY m. Scorecard – QTRLY Review

n. Loss Elimination - continuous improvement approach with milestones o. Trust and a collaborative relationship where both the customer and supplier work to

support each other

S. Based upon input from the team there is a need to upgrade supplier performance across these categories to meet the expectations of their customers in an ever-changing e-commerce/omni channel retail market place:

T. Faster response time to demand changes U. Great agility from suppliers to accommodate demand changes V. Smaller MOQ’s to reduce inventory carrying cost and obsolescence W. Greater flexibility - Right mix of products at the right time X. Faster and more accurate data exchange from both the customer and the supplier ahead of any

digitization process Y. Streamlined forecast/demand process allowing for greater flexibility and response time Z. A well-executed contract and SLED to insure thorough understanding of responsibility AA. Focus on loss-elimination and cost reduction – safe-guarding profit while reducing waste

BB. The team reviewed options for the IRT to participate in CI Connect conference Oct. 1,2,3rd -Ideas included:

j. A simulation – like the Beer Game to drive home the thought process needed to adapt to the e-commerce market place -Annette to lead the investigation for options

k. A game that drives home a key point in the no-tough replenishment process l. A review of the SLED or other topics in a break-out session that help F4SS members adopt

the tools we have developed m. How to use problem solving tools developed by the team n. A Rockline presentation providing the supplier perspective of vender managed inventory -

Oscar to determine if they will prepare a presentation o. An Ariba/Nulogy presentation demonstrating how digitization of replenishment can improve

supply chain management and what is required to embark on this journey – Don-Oscar set up a time to explore

p. A Smuckers presentation demonstrating how Ariba was deployed to improve supply chain performance -Dave to reach out to Smuckers to gauge interest

CC. Development of a Customer -Supplier training program that guides partners through the processes required to achieve a no-touch replenishment solution leveraging industry experts, IRT tools, and team members to add value to F4SS members in achieving the expectations required to meet the e-commerce challenges

DD. Continue development and refinement of the Maturity Assessment Tool

April 26th/27th 2018 Face to Face Meeting

Thanks to Annette Cutchens and Coregistics for Hosting the IR Team meeting

EE. The team discussed development of an approach to support suppliers through the development of a no-touch replenishment process. 4 pillars include p. Contract -reviewed annually q. SLED – reviewed QTRLY r. Scorecard – QTRLY Review s. Loss Elimination continuous improvement approach with milestones

FF. The process is outlined in the attached PP and includes: a. A signed agreement b. An executed SLED agreement c. Process built on trust, collaboration and transparency d. Operational improvement – flexibility e. Capacity optimization -lean six sigma f. Documented work processes g. Loss Elimination

GG. The team discussed how systems like ARIBA or other similar processes can be leveraged to drive

no-touch replenishment a. IR Team is looking to execute pilots to expand the opportunity to develop a no-touch

replenishment process b. Please reach out to customers and suppliers to evaluate opportunities

HH. The team reviewed the IRT tools to add to the F4SS website

a. SLED b. Model of Non-Performing Inventory accountability NPI c. Phase I and Phase II Handbooks d. Business Models -Traditional AKA (Free Issue/Tolling) – Full Service – Directed Buy – Turn

Key e. Fish Bone Diagrams f. Score Card

II. The team reviewed options for the CI Connect conference in Oct. Ideas included

q. A simulation – like the Beer Game r. A game that drives home a key point in the no-tough replenishment process s. A review of the SLED or other topics in a break-out session t. How to use problem solving tools u. Invite an ARIBA representative to share their process and work concepts v. Would Smuckers be willing to share their process to pay work with ARIBA

w. Speed networking – providing customers and suppliers an opportunity to meet x. Rockline willingness to share their experience with the pilot implemented with GoJo

May 14th Meeting Minutes

1. The team discussed scheduling a face to face meeting – Target date April 26th and 27th – Coregistics plant Chicago – Please mark your calendars – details to follow

2. The team reviewed the feedback from the survey conducted at the F4SS Connect Event –(actual survey results below) take always from the survey discussion included:

a. Design for an e-commerce environment - b. Demand – develop tools to manage fluctuations in demand – providing more agility c. Training for new product introduction processes that incorporates e-commerce demands d. Responsiveness from weeks to hours – tools to accomplish e. Faster -shorter lead-time – how to guide - to accomplish f. Improve planning processes to be more responsive to demand changes g. Re-design processes – take existing processes and improve to be more agile and responsive

to changing demand in an e-commerce market h. Automate production lines, faster changeover, more efficient run strategy i. Shift planning to supplier allowing optimization of run strategy, material procurement,

shorter lead-time, less loss and obsolescence j. Build trust to allow supplier to plan replenishment process (T&C) k. Adapt existing IRT tools to accommodate the new e-commerce environment – SLED -add tab

for e-commerce expectations – get specific with responsibility and accountability – execute an annual review of the SLED

l. Coordinate with other teams – CI, T&C to help cover e-commerce expectations

3. SAP has developed a new platform on top of the SAP a. Explore collaboration with SAP – F4SS -SAP joint conference with e-commerce theme b. Review IR systems and share best practices

4. Develop a roadmap or process for execution of the SLED document a. Update SLED b. Annual review and update

c. Add E-commerce tab

5. Survey results

1. What are the major challenges your company faces as E-Commerce and Omni channel distribution continue to grow? a. Ability to react to volume spikes b. Ability to adjust to lower than expected volume c. Amazon algorithm directing consumers away from your brand d. Packaging XX (to meet e-commerce specifications) e. Cost XX -Cost of packaging -efficiency and logistics f. Variability in package design to survive shipping and be “green” g. Small run sizes XX -Unilever and P&G h. Production inefficiencies due to schedule changes i. Short lead-times j. Skill set to address lacking k. Keeping up with the changes l. We do not worry -not started

2. Where can the IR Team lend support to help you navigate this dynamic e-commerce world? a. Too tough a question b. Case Studies c. How do you transform your supply chain to address the variables listed in question

1? XX d. 3rd parties should offer brands expertise and flexibility in small run sizes, and

package development e. Scheduling solutions – how to predict demand f. Remove the fear of corporate secrets being shared

3. Do you have difficultly predicting demand in an e-commerce environment? a. Yes, same as internal XXXXXX (Da) b. Most run to forecast – same with combination of running to order

4. Are you finding it difficult to develop packaging solutions that can withstand the rigors

of e-commerce shipping cost effectively?

a. Difficult -from pre-testing to development b. Yes, continued demand for customization driving smaller multiples c. Yes XX d. Yes, the key being cost effectively e. Yes, purchase new equipment – expensive

5. Is sustainability a challenge in the e-commerce environment? a. Yes, less efficient b. Additional packaging is required for SIOC (ship in own container) -not all is recyclable c. Yes, extra packaging -more durable packaging d. Yes -no ship in own container e. Yes

6. Are your e-commerce customers requiring one-off packaging solutions w/o incremental cost? a. Yes, they want their own b. Requesting, yes, is it sustainable? No c. Absolutely d. Yes XX e. They are trying

7. Are the specifications changing typical cases and pallet distribution programs to new

specifications required to meet the e-commerce channel is presenting a challenge? a.Yes X X X X X X b. Most re-packs and upgraded packaging solutions, new SKU creation

8. Has your company adopted a new mind set to adapt to this new market? a. Some b. Yes X c. Not fully, companies will need to adapt or outsource to succeed d. Yes, we have to, to stay competitive e. Some have -some still struggling f. Evolving -feeling behind g. No

9. Has your company adopted an approach to product ideation, package design, and collaboration to meet the fast-growing e-commerce market requirements and rigorous ship test expectations? a. Some -not yet b. No XX c. Yes XX d. Some have processes formalized XX, other don’t e. We think so -no packaging suppliers at our table

10. Are data system requirements and data integration requirements from e-commerce retailers presenting additional challenges? a. Yes, Amazon (ated) as an example – require within 16-24 hours of receipt of PO –

how many to provider will ship b. Yes, even the data/forecast Amazon provides is inaccurate c. Yes, integration d. Yes XXX

11. Are quick response times to demand changes requiring extreme flexibility in your

manufacturing operations? a. No kidding – Yes b. Yes, more small runs with greater customization

c. Yes XXXXX

IRT Meeting Minutes:

1. 2018 Team objective – what is it we would like to accomplish this year? Where can the IR Team offer support and assistance to the F4SS Membership?

2. Next Steps: a. Create a survey with some questions pertaining to the challenges of E-Commerce (attached) b. Distribute the survey to IRT members attending the F4SS Connect Feb 26-28th c. At the lunch tables on February 27th, ask for input from the folks at your table to respond to

the questions -record their input

d. Give Dave H the record of the input -we will consolidate and discuss at our next team meeting to help use prioritize our objectives for 2018

Potential topics Include: a. Predicting demand in an e-commerce environment has proven very challenging for

customers (brand owners) and their suppliers. b. Development of packaging solutions that can withstand the rigors of e-commerce shipping

cost effectively and sustainability is a challenge. One off packaging solutions are needed w/o incremental cost.

c. Changing typical cases and pallet distribution programs to new specifications required to meet the e-commerce channel is presenting a challenge to customers

d. Mind sets must change to adapt to this new market e. A different approach to product ideation, package design, and collaboration is required to

meet the fast-growing e-commerce market requirements f. Data system requirements and data integration requirements from e-commerce retailers is

presenting additional challenges. g. Quick response time to demand changes requires extreme flexibility in the manufacturing

operations h. Efficiency cannot be sacrificed to meet demand shifts and new packaging formants and

maintain profitability i. New ship tests are required to ensure packaging can withstand the rigors of the e-

commerce distribution channel.

Suggestion - On-Line E-commerce hand-book for F4SS members – how to guidebook helping members navigate the e-commerce world – integrate with other teams to help develop sections of the hand-book – one stop shop for data and information -this concept will be further developed with input from our other teams.

a. Predicting demand b. Incorporate standards -package design c. Package design considerations d. Manufacturing solutions e. Leveraging best practices f. Sustainability requirements

3. Suggested approach for the IR Team to consider a. Visit with an Amazon of other e-commerce provider to learn what is required to be

successful in this channel and adapt our team to assist F4SS members to provide. b. Determine which customers are already meeting the demands of e-commerce and leverage

their experience and best practices to other F4SS constituents to reduce the time needed to adapt and accelerate the learning curve.

c. Work with the CI Connect team this fall to participate in an Amazon DC tour to gain perspective

d. Meet at the F4SS Connect in February as we gain additional insight into the e-commerce world form the conference speakers to further refine our 2018 direction

e. Order management systems development – logistics – incorporating tools, training, sharing best practices, develop next steps

f. Finalize OTIF metrics as a component of the SLED document

4. Maturity assessment tool – continue to develop the tool and refine to assist F4SS members with their internal evaluation – updates provided – Consolidate all teams input into one document – post on the F4SS website -continue to refine and link to appropriate tools

IRT Meeting Minutes:

5. The team reviewed the team vision for 2018 and agreed with the overall direction -

As a result, the IR initiative team will begin to incorporate the needs for this dynamically changing e-commerce retail environment into their focus areas.

6. The IR Team is already focused on leveraging advances in technology to support this very dynamic market. Current challenges facing F4SS members include: j. Predicting demand in an e-commerce environment has proven very challenging for

customers (brand owners) and their suppliers. k. Development of packaging solutions that can withstand the rigors of e-commerce shipping

cost effectively and sustainability is a challenge. One off packaging solutions are needed w/o incremental cost.

l. Changing typical cases and pallet distribution programs to new specifications required to meet the e-commerce channel is presenting a challenge to customers

m. Mind sets must change to adapt to this new market n. A different approach to product ideation, package design, and collaboration is required to

meet the fast-growing e-commerce market requirements o. Data system requirements and data integration requirements from e-commerce retailers is

presenting additional challenges. p. Quick response time to demand changes requires extreme flexibility in the manufacturing

operations q. Efficiency cannot be sacrificed to meet demand shifts and new packaging formants and

maintain profitability

r. New ship tests are required to ensure packaging can withstand the rigors of the e-commerce distribution channel.

7. Suggested approach for the IR Team to consider g. Visit with an Amazon of other e-commerce provider to learn what is required to be

successful in this channel and adapt our team to assist F4SS members to provide. h. Determine which customers are already meeting the demands of e-commerce and leverage

their experience and best practices to other F4SS constituents to reduce the time needed to adapt and accelerate the learning curve.

i. Work with the CI Connect team this fall to participate in an Amazon DC tour to gain perspective

j. Meet at the F4SS Connect in February as we gain additional insight into the e-commerce world form the conference speakers to further refine our 2018 direction

8. Maturity assessment tool – continue to develop the tool and refine to assist F4SS members with their internal evaluation – updates provided -

9. SELD -we have harmonized on the acronym – SLED – Site Level Executed Document

10. Next Meeting 2-14-18 -2PM EST

IRT Meeting Minutes:

1. Review and edit the draft revised Team Vision -the team discussed the team vision – if you have specific input please let us know and we will incorporate

Team Vision - The team will focus on how supply chains must evolve to meet the demands of a very dynamic market. The team will work to find new

technological solutions to old problems, engaging with thought leaders in the areas of replenishment, forecasting and supply chain reliability.

2. The F4SS BOD has established a focus on E-Commence, Digital, and Omni channel distribution.

As a result, the initiative teams should begin to incorporate the needs for this dynamically changing retail environment into their focus areas. The IR Team is already focused on leveraging advances in technology to support this very dynamic market. We are looking for break-through technology solutions for our members.

The Maturity Assessment Tool will demonstrate how to deploy the tools already developed.

To advance our mission and support our members on their journey to world class, the team will refocus on the cutting-edge thought processes, innovative solutions and explore new supply chain approaches.

3. Develop the Maturity Assessment Tool for use by our members. Draft attached for review.

John – Business Model

Annette –Finished Goods Planning

Erica – Raw Material and Planning & Purchasing

Carolina – Production Execution and Delivery Performance

Oscar – Loss Elimination

Inventory Management – TBD

4. Develop an annual meeting calendar:

Next Meeting - 1/10 2pm ET,

2/7 2pm ET.

Thereafter, the second Wednesday of each month at 2pm ET.

2/14/18, 3/14/18, 4/11/18, 5/9/18, 6/13/18, 7/11/18, 8/08/18, 9/12/18, 10/10/18, 11/14/18, 12/12/18

5. The BOD of F4SS is working to establish a CI Connect at an Amazon site, the IRT will work with the F4SS BOD to integrate a program that meets our mission.

6. Tools Update - Link to the tools: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2gmYcMDh2pOUDQ1cmlFQm14UjA?usp=sharing

o The tools that were deemed no longer relevant will be deleted from the program.

o The CSOP Handbook will be reviewed and edited. o The SLEA and GOJO Case Studies will be added to the new website. o The relevant tools will be linked to the Maturity Assessment Program in

development.

KC Face to Face Meeting Minutes

I. Team Charter – we reviewed the original charter – Development of a No-touch replenishment process for customers and suppliers – we agreed that this goal was still the

driving force behind the work of the team.

A. To accomplish this goal, we decided to continue to focus on the building blocks of the

fully integrated process as detailed in the pyramid.

ERP System Integration

Slow Moving Obsolete Inventory Agreement

Develop Score Card

Manufacturing Agreement

Site Level Executed Document

Insure Master Data Accuracy-

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2gmYcMDh2pOUDQ1cmlFQm14UjA?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2gmYcMDh2pOUDQ1cmlFQm14UjA?usp=sharing

B. It was discussed how critical communication between the customer and supplier to meet

the goals established – the handbooks provide communication guidance to achieve the value

in the process.

c. Team stability was also a critical component for the process to function – significant

turnover can lead to disruption to the process.

d. Only key strategic suppliers will be involved in a process this rigorous - the savings from full

implementation of a fully integrated process are significant as demonstrated by the GoJo pilot

results

II. A good IR process will include a. Definitive Agreement

b. SLED -Site Level Executed Document

c. Scorecard – to evaluate performance in an objective discussion

d. Loss Elimination -continues improvement objectives

e. These tools can be found at F4SS.ORG

f. Master Data accuracy evaluation

g. Defined working model

h. SLOB approach that is effective for both parties

i. Open transparent communication

j. GoJo visibility tool format as an intermediate step to the develop of a linked ERP system

Oscar, Annette, Dave will review the tools already developed and work to organize them in a way that

enables F4SS members to better incorporate into their day to day operations

III. SLED Update – feedback from last IRT meeting was incorporated in the updated SLED document -

a. The IRT has asked to have the QPLT review the document in relation to the Quality

sections of the SLED. – Dave will follow up with Chris Calhoun to advance the

coordination of the two teams with regards to the score card

b. It was decided to incorporate a costing process tab to the SLED – Annette and Oscar

will work together and will add a section to accommodate this improvement

c. To implement a SLED, it was recommended that customers/suppliers be tiered – Tier

1, Tier 2, Tier 3 – focus and passion around implementing a SLED will start with Tier 1

suppliers

d. Value Equation for the work involved in building a detailed SLED with your

customer/supplier

i. Provides operational discipline

ii. Mitigates supply chain risk as communication is enhanced

iii. Expectations are clearly defined and understood

iv. Metrics provide trending data -issues can be addressed before they become

catastrophic

v. Monthly review provides opportunity to address issues collaboratively and

cooperatively enhancing relationship – SLOB, Forecast Accuracy, Usage Variance vi. Scorecard

How it is used with Customers - the F4SS scorecard is a good base, needs individual modifications for their use which is not time consuming

IV. Project Pilot Updates

The pilots are designed to prove the concept that sharing Finished Goods demand from the customer to

the supplier, in a more efficient and integrated manner, we can reduce replenishment lead-time resulting

in less inventory, reduced out of stocks, improved fill rates. There is an opportunity to reduce the FTEs

required to plan both for the customer and supplier reducing the redundancies inherent in the current

process. Overall enhancing the customer – supplier value equation.

Pilot 1- Smucker and Supplier –Annette will follow up with Smucker’s Laura Ingraham to determine

their involvement with the IRT team and pilot status.

Pilot 2- GoJo – Wipe Partner – Rockline -Excellent progress

Step 1 - Define accountability with updated Contract and SLEA, followed by Master Data Audit to insure

accurate data, development of an EDI process to expedite transaction efficiency.

Step 2- A robust CSOP (customer -supplier operations planning) process helps create a pro-active

opportunity to resolve constraints and address issues in a collaborate environment.

The project is designed to provide supplier – forecast, sales history, days of inventory, GoJo will block 2

Step 3 - Weeks’ production (frozen zone) at supplier on a dedicated line, provide demand and forecast,

allowing supplier to create PO’s for week 3 – this process will permit the supplier to optimize their run

strategy, reduce changeovers, and improve efficiency.

Step 4- Plan based upon trust, open and honest communication, transparency and stable working teams

with the supplier to optimize their production while meeting case fill rates and weekly attainment

expectations.

Step 5- Supplier creates an optimized transportation plan building efficient Truck Loads

Kimberly Clark – is evaluating a pilot opportunity at year end – developing an RFP to determine the best

partner to improve customer -supplier interface

V. Pilot Metrics –

To evaluate process effectiveness for each of these pilots, we are requesting that pilot participants

capture key metrics to build a case for expanding the IR process and gaining additional support.

Market promotions System EDI

Change Control Forecast Generation

Communication failures Data Availability

Management of complexity RCCP

Trend analysis

Process Management

Updating master data

Schedule optimization

Run Strategy

Supplier technical capability

VI. System Integration Status Update

Current Solutions –

a. Excel shared between customer and supplier

b. EDI – data shared via EDI transaction sets mapped to customer and supplier system

c. WEB form – ad hoc format designed to link customer and supplier ERP systems

d. FTP (protocol) – customized solution requiring mapping between customer and

supplier ERP systems

e. Portal – customer opens a portal to their ERP system allowing supplier to access data

needed to develop replenishment plan

f. API – a type of web form

Better option -Our goal would be to develop a solution that enables data sharing from

many systems allowing both customers and suppliers access to demand data, as well as upstream

suppliers – this network would provide real-time updates and reduce delays leading to a more

efficient solution

Options to evaluate

1. GP Nexus

2. Ariba

3. Dell

4. MuleSoft

5. SAP

6. Greenfence

VII. Innovation Sub-Team

The team’s charter will be to investigate and evaluate new and cutting edge

concepts in replenishment and leverage those learnings to the F4SS membership

Team Members

Oscar Uzcategui – GoJo -Team Leader

Matt O’Conner – Rockline Industries

Carolina Velez – Kimberly Clark

Chris Conley – Continental Mills

Ask QPLT for a representative

Dave Hempson -F4SS

Next Steps

1. Explore University connection – evaluate hosting the next IRT meeting at Harvard,

Princeton, Kent State or another university where we can leverage state of the art

thinking with practical applications – full day case study -target Oct./Nov

2. Focus on forecast improvement – 50% accuracy is considered a good target today

3. Oscar and Annette will coordinate and develop an approach for this innovative

concept

VIII. Target New Members – 1. We have found that networking of team members is the most productive way to

recruit

2. Please reach out to two potential new members and work to have them join the IRT

We will discuss your efforts at our next team meeting

3. Seeking a volunteer to create the first blog. The subject matter could be a best practice, perhaps something you've recently achieved that is noteworthy. It may also be an industry trend. Oscar volunteered to write the first blog. It was suggested it

could be about their recent success of applying the F4SS tools to their working relationship with Rockline.

4. Don to get date from Lauren on when the blog will be needed but the target is sometime in May. Webinar topics

5. Perhaps a case study with the GOJO/Rockline experience. Target date would be sometime in June.

6. However, it was stressed for best practices sharing we really do need more case studies and we need to work on getting them.

7. To help prepare for the webinar, it was asked if F4SS has any templates or guidelines that would be helpful. Don will check with Lauren.

8. In regard to blogs, the Nulogy Learning Center has several samples that can be viewed. These mostly relate to industry trends but will serve as a good guideline for our blog.

IX. Next IR Team meeting

1. Matt O’Conner has volunteered Rockline as a site for the October meeting

2. Supply Chain Best Practice discussion - future meeting should be in or near a

manufacturing plant or somehow coupled with a Supply Chain event or program. 3. Perhaps a company like the Waffle House or Roskam Baking

or perhaps a company that is an event organizer like a major concert organizer

4. Should we use some kind of online action tracker or monthly calls to keep in touch and do status updates? It was suggested we schedule calls for now.

X. Wow Factor We would like your input as to what would create a compelling wow to increase

involvement and participation with our team -no suggestion is too outlandish – please

send your ideas to Oscar, Annette, and Dave

Thanks to all who attended – we appreciate your commitment

and involvement – as we continue to advance the customer –

supplier interface there is significant value to extract from the

processes we are working to pilot and improve.