The Death of Supply Chain Managment

Clarity: Could you elaborate further? Could you give me an example? Could you illustrate what you mean?

• The article elaborated enough for it to be clear to me that with technology changing, humans will be replaced by machines and that businesses need to be prepared for it. The examples used were replacing labor-intensive tasks that humans don’t prefer doing and machine are better at them anyways. It was clear that the time is coming, and employees must readjust their skill base in order to stay relevant.

Accuracy: How could we check on that? How could we find out if that is true? How could we verify or test that?

• It could be checked by actually going into manufacturing plants and seeing how much they actually have updated and changed due to technology. I know it’s true because Peterbilt, in the past year, added a new robotic cell in the plant to begin building a new model truck.

Precision: Could you be more specific? Could you give me more details? Could you be more exact?

• The article was precise in explaining the new “digital control towers.” They gave specific examples where machines are being used to replace people, like sensors, driverless trains, and robots.

Relevance: How does that relate to the problem? How does that bear on the question? How does that help us with the issue?

• It is relevant because it is actually happening as we speak. Machines are taking over and killing supply chain management. It helps by foreshadowing what could occur in the future. If we take it seriously, we can be prepared for the time coming.

Depth: What factors make this a difficult problem? What are some of the complexities of this question? What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?

• The complexities are how do companies deal with the significant changes, and the article doesn’t give many concrete ways to come out of it. The difficulties dealing with is also how do humans stay relevant.

Breadth: Do we need to look at this from another perspective? Do we need to consider another point of view? Do we need to look at this in other ways?

• If we look at it as “The Evolution of Supply Chain Management,” this point of view can be less concrete on the fact that it’s dying, but how do businesses continue to evolve while technology is rapidly changing.

Logic: Does all this make sense together? Does your first paragraph fit in with your last? Does what you say follow from the evidence?

• The article does make sense because it is actually occurring. From the beginning paragraph, to the end, it clearly explains the changes, the new technology, and what people need to do to set themselves apart.

Significance: Is this the most important problem to consider? Is this the central idea to focus on? Which of these facts are most important?

• In the supply industry, it is a very important problem to considered. The supply chain field, people don’t want to lose their jobs. If they know these things are happening, it is significant that they prepare themselves.

Fairness: Do I have any vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?