Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Microsoft Case Study: Based End-To-End Supply Chain Solution
Microsoft Case Study: Based End-To-End Supply Chain Solution
Microsoft Case Study: Based End-To-End Supply Chain Solution
1. Introducing Microsoft
2. Microsoft’s 1DSC Initiative
3. TOC Project Results
4. TOC SC Solution Design
7 Final Remarks
1. Introducing Microsoft
Office for Windows Office 97 Office 2000 Office 2001 Office 2003 Office 2007 Office 2010 Office 2013
1990 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2010 2013 2015
Microsoft Softcard Microsoft Mouse Microsoft MacEnhancer Microsoft MACH 20 Microsoft Keyboard
for Apple II 1983 1985 1988 1994
1980
Microsoft Sidewinder Microsoft Xbox Microsoft Xbox 360 Microsoft Zune Microsoft Surface 1.0
1996 2001 2005 2006 2007
Microsoft` Kinect
2010
>290M
Units Manufactured & Shipped
>31,000
Number of Active SKU’s
~$11B >600+
Number of Suppliers
Total Amount of Annual Spend (includes component suppliers)
13
Number of Manufacturing 52
Locations Number of Distribution Centers
3M+
Est. FY16 Number of Retail and
3.5M+
Est. FY16 Deliveries
Commercial Sales orders
191
Countries Served
30K+
Number of Outlets
(Carriers, Retailers and MS Stores)
2 Months later
1
3
Lenovo Yoga
How we deliver
Connect Collaborative
Make Portal Supply Chain MS Sales
CM-PLM CM-SFCS Deliver WMS TMS Supply Chain Collaboration Device Telemetry MS Store / CSS Jarvis Entitlement
NPI Sourcing Planning Manufacturing GSC Returns / Care Quality Financial performance
A N A LY TI C S
• Functional End to • Spend • Demand Accuracy • Functional End to • Sales vs Forecast • Return Rate • Factory quality • P&L
End First Pass End First Pass
Yield • Supplier Quality • Supply Fulfillment Yield • Inventory Health • CSAT • Field quality • Inventory
• Supplier • Inventory Risk • Functional OBA • On time Delivery • TAT • Repair quality • OPEX
Compliance
• Quality excursions
*1DSC Infrastructure
6 using to Using
. .., 16-Nov-16
7
MICROSOFT DIGITAL DEVICES SUPPLY CHAIN
Designing TOC-based SCM Solution Using Harmonytoc.com
7 using to Using
. .., 16-Nov-16
Learning and Innovation
Push supply model Pull supply model Pull supply model Push supply
model
c Is forecasted demand within RRT from step 1 Forecast 1800 Target 1800
significantly different from TMR, TMG or TMR 1200
current target? If yes, Adjust to forecast within
RRT Forecast 1500 Target 1200
TMR 1200
Analyze
Patterns
Implement Simulate
in SAP Rules
Summary of
Data imported
View Cumulative
Demand Forecast vs.
Actual Customer Orders vs.
Allocations vs.
Daily Production Capacity.
Reorder Point =
Consensus Forecast Target Stock Level
Time Shift forecast
by 1st RRLT
Final Forecast
SAP Ariba
Suppliers
Historical Forecast SAP - APO
Lowest Inventory
Purchase
Target Stock Level
Requisitions Purchase Orders
Purchase Requisitions
Lead Time SAP - ERP
PPS Transport
MAD GI RDD
SAP Ariba
Suppliers Inventory
Current Load ½
Production
MAD – Material Availability Date Buffer
GI – Goods Issue Date
PPS – Pick Pack Ship Time
RDD – Customer Requested Delivery Date
GATP – Global Available to Promise SAP - GATP
7 Final Remarks
©2017 Goldratt Research Labs. All Rights Reserved. Photo By: Dawn Endico
Source: https://www.haikudeck.com/call-me-trim-tab-inspiration-presentation-GCPVMoYXCE
Thank You