Is Your Supply Chain Broken? 5 Questions CEOs Should Ask

Is your supply chain broken or about to break?

Is your supply chain broken or about to break?

A recent story in Industry Week reiterates the importance that C-level executives need to monitor and manage their supply chains.  The story, written by two supply chain experts at Wipro Consulting, details five questions that CEOs should be asking about the condition and status of their supply chains – especially in light of recent news items such as the “horsegate” problem in Europe relating to horsemeat being included in beef products. The authors raise the question of whether or not the scale of the supply chain might in and of itself have been a contributing factor in quality control failures.

One key point they make: if you think quality in a supply chain is just having the right materials in the right place at the right time, you’re not thinking broadly enough. Supply chain management must also focus on the quality of the materials, the accuracy and content value in the information shared between supplier and customer, and the accuracy and timeliness in the financial transactions.

They suggest that it makes financial sense to proactively manage your supply chain to make sure it is designed to be successful and propose five questions that every CEO should ask:

1. Is quality built into your supply chain, or do inspection and correction occur after the fact?

2. Is supply chain management a strategic senior level position in your organization or is it a part of an operations activity?

3. Is the movement of information and money as critical in your supply chain as the movement of materials? In other words, does it take longer to create paperwork and process payments than it takes to deliver the goods?

4. Do you have a built-in change management process that constantly reviews the elements of your supply chain and looks for opportunities to improve quality and operational efficiency—or do your systems, policies and procedures block improvement?

5. Does your supply chain minimize the amount of touches and the touch time in supply chain transactions, so as to reduce the number of potential failure points?

All too often, we at Intelleflex see supply chains (especially cold chains) that are primarily reactive. Information about the condition of a product that has spoiled or been exposed to adverse conditions is available only after-the-fact when it is too late to take corrective action. Additionally, information is not typically easily shared between supply chain partners and too much of the record keeping is paper-based which slows down supply chain operations and can introduce costly errors.

The article proposes some answers to these questions stating that the issues relate to culture, capability, flexibility, capacity and technology, systems and processes, repeatability and reliability, and collaboration.

Solutions that provide the ability to automatically capture and collect information electronically about products as they move through the supply chain is essential.  But, equally important is the ability to access, share and act upon that data. RFID and cloud-based data services (such as ZEST Data Services) can help make this happen and not only improve supply chain operations but provide valuable information to supply chain executives that provides the ability to proactively manage an intelligent supply chain.

The article concludes with some wise advice: It shouldn’t take a high-profile quality control failure for CEOs to take a fresh look at what’s happening in their own organization since a supply chain failure of any kind could devastate or destroy profitability. Start being proactive by asking the five key questions and ensuring that your supply chain organization has a culture of collaboration, responsiveness and constant improvement.

You can read the entire Industry Week article here.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

Big Data in the Supply Chain? Why?

There's big benefits associated with Big Data

There’s big benefits associated with Big Data

Big Data is one of the hottest topics in business today. Companies in the financial, insurance, retail and a host of other industries are quickly realizing that the vast amounts of data being captured and collected can be of incredible strategic value to their business operations. The same holds true in the cold supply chain where literally hundreds of thousands of temperature, condition, waypoint and production data points can be collected for a single shipment.

But what can you do with this data and how do you make sense of it?

Making sense of it requires the ability to sift through the data to identify areas that require specific (and occasionally) immediate attention and essentially archiving and analyzing the rest of the data later to spot macro trends. Fortunately that technology exists to do this. When you identify events or issues that require immediate attention you can focus supply chain personnel’s attention directly on addressing those issues and event. For example, if a pallet of fruit or meat was left sitting on a loading dock, a temperature monitor can identify the issue and, via a reader connected to a cloud-based data service, can then notify a dock worker to collect that pallet and re-chill it immediately resulting in less waste, better quality and cost savings.

Where does the supply chain stand on Big Data?

EyeForTransport, a UK-based provider of business intelligence and C-level networking for the transport, logistics and supply chain industry, recently published their Supply Chain Big Data Report for 2013 (you can get a copy by filling out a form here), along with an accompanying infographic. The report, based on their survey done in February of this year with companies worldwide, reveals some interesting insights.

  • 84% of supply chain executives that think big data will have an impact on their company’s performance.
  • Over 61% of the supply chain executives said they were currently implementing 27.4% or considering (33.7%) implementing a big data analytics project.
  • When asked to rank leaders in the field, nearly 45% cited retailers and over 22% cited consumer goods manufacturers.

Why do so many supply chain executives think so much of Big Data? The top answer: to increase supply chain visibility.  Supply chain visibility means reducing costs (and improving efficiencies).  Respondents also said that they want to move away from making decisions using historical data and move towards real-time decision making.

One last interesting take-away: According to the EyeForTransport survey, of those executives currently implementing Big Data solutions, two thirds of those surveyed expect to see ROI on the project within 12 months.  That’s impressive. There’s that much value in the data and having the ability to improve supply chain visibility and real-time decision making.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

Food Security: Is it Really About Production?

Maybe production isn't the issue

Maybe production isn’t the issue

A colleague recently sent me a link to an interesting blog Open the Echo Chamber with a recent post by Edward Carr titled Doing Food Security Differently – Theme 1: Get Over Production. The main gist of the blog post has to do with feeding a growing global population.  There are two basic ways to feed an increasing global population:

  1. Produce more food.
  2. Waste less food.

Most commentators tend to focus on finding new technology and tools that will help us produce more food, more efficiently. As I’ve blogged about before, people tend to forget about the second option: finding ways to maximize post-harvest yield and waste less.  (We waste between $35 and $400 or so billion of food each year, depending on which source you cite.)

Carr’s blog post makes the point that production isn’t the issue and that we are already producing more than enough food to feed a growing planet and that we should instead focus our resources on the fact that we waste too much.  Some interesting comments in his blog post:

  • Every year, the Earth produces roughly twice the calories needed to feed every single human being.
  • There is no unavoidable global shortage that creates famine and hunger. Nor, in fact, are we likely to be looking at a global food shortage any time soon.
  • There is less excess marketable supply than ever before.  Note that there is less excess marketable supply – this is the amount of food we produce that actually reaches market, not the total amount of food grown and raised each year.

In Carr’s opinion:

The simple point here is that these trends are manageable if we can get over the idea of food security as a question of production. [Emphasis added.] The idea of scarcity is perhaps the biggest challenge we face in addressing the world’s food needs.  As long as food security policy and programs remain focused on solving scarcity, food security will remain focused on technical fixes for hunger: greater technology, greater inputs, greater efficiency.

Carr then adds:

Simply put, it is cheaper and easier to enhance agricultural extension to improve local food storage techniques, build and maintain good roads, and improve electrical grids and other parts of the cold chain that preserves produce from farm to market than it is to completely reengineer an agricultural ecology.  [Emphasis added.] It makes far more sense to make basic infrastructural investments than it does to tether ever more farmers to inputs that require finite fossil fuel and mineral resources.  It makes more sense to better train farmers in storing what they already produce in a manner that preserves more of the harvest than it does to invest billions in the modification of crops, especially when the bulk of genetic modification in agriculture these days is defensive – that is, guarding against future yield loss, not enhancing yields in the present.

I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one that sees reducing waste as an area where we should focus our attention. The technology exists for us to significantly reduce waste and get more fresh food to the consumer.  (And, yes, I believe our temperature monitors and ZEST Data Services are a part of this solution.) Yet the industry seems bent on the idea that billions of dollars of waste is an acceptable and unavoidable cost of doing business. It simply isn’t true.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

Invisible Shrink: Better Check that Fuel Gauge!

Shipping produce without knowing its relative remaining shelf life is like flying a plane without a fuel gauge

Shipping produce without knowing its relative remaining shelf life is like flying a plane without a fuel gauge

Ron Pelger, a former director of produce operations in retail grocery, recently wrote an article in The Produce News titled In the Trenches: Are you overlooking invisible shrink?  I’ve commented on this issue of identifying where shrink or waste occurs in the cold chain before but Ron, as a former “trench worker” brings a fresh perspective on the subject.

He writes: Whenever a produce manager was questioned about his or her shrink, the response usually was, “I don’t know where our shrink is occurring. I have a good staff and we faithfully follow all the company shrink programs. The numbers have to be wrong.

Well, the numbers probably aren’t wrong and there may be great shrink control programs in place.  The problem lies in that too many people think that shrink begins at the store.

Ron raises some key points:

  1. The produce industry is muddled in its means of arriving at where exactly shrink originates.
  2. Retail companies are still measuring produce shrink in the same store-level manner.
  3. Retailers focus on produce managers for shrink in the store while it also develops in other exterior areas. (And ones that are completely outside the control of the produce manager!)

He suggests that we considered another reason which he terms “invisible shrink” that results from a myriad of variations in cut-to-cool and pre-cooling that impact produce shelf life and that retail produce managers shouldn’t be held to blame for in-store waste.

Mike Nicometo, cool-chain expert and president of EmpowerTech Inc. says that we shouldn’t discipline the produce manager for problems that they didn’t cause. Mike says that advanced shelf life loss is simply not visible until much later in the supply chain and that, in order to manage shrink and quality, we need to realize that putting product into the cool chain logistics process without knowing how much shelf life it has to start out.  He likens this to sending a fleet of planes to random destinations without knowing how much fuel they have at take-off.

What a great analogy!

Mike explains: When comparing the temperature of each pallet on a load versus the commonly monitored ambient air of the trailer for thousands of pallets during three to five day trucking from Mexico to the U.S., I found over 30 percent of individual pallets were running very warm, causing high levels of advanced shelf life loss. Typically, the advanced shelf life loss was invisible at receiving QR inspections, resulting in product being considered equal. In reality, many pallets were over four days older in terms of shelf life than were the others.

The article goes on to discuss how new software and temperature monitoring technologies can be employed at the pallet-level to help gauge the actual relative remaining shelf life, making the “invisible” data visible and enabling better decision making that can reduce shrink and improve quality.

We’d better start checking that fuel gauge!

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

FSMA: The Movie

Leavitt Partners' Jennifer McEntire explains the recent FDA report on FSMA pilots in a short video...well worth the watch!

Leavitt Partners’ Jennifer McEntire explains the recent FDA report on FSMA pilots in a short video

Yesterday I blogged about the FDA’s new 334 page Food Safety Modernization Act Pilot Study Report that was written by the Institute of Food Technologists and Leavitt Partners.  After I published the blog post, I was corresponding with the very helpful Jennifer McEntire of Leavitt Partners who co-authored this report.  I was complimenting her on the report but said I would probably wait “until the movie version came out” (parroting the modern student’s refrain of “why read ‘Gone with the Wind’ when you can watch the movie much more quickly).

Much to my surprise, Jennifer immediately sent me back a link to a three and a half minute video she recorded explaining the report.  Sure, it doesn’t have all of the detail covered in the 334 page document but, for most of us, it’s a great “Cliff Notes” version.  You can watch the video here.

Thanks to Jennifer and Leavitt Partners for sharing this information with all of us.

PS: On March 7, Jennifer McEntire published another excellent newsletter/article on this topic which can be found here.  It also includes a link to an upcoming webinar on the topic.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

FDA Publishes Report on Product Traceability Pilots

Earlier today, the FDA issued a report on two product traceability pilot projects that were undertaken as a part of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law in January, 2011.  This milestone demonstrates further progress in moving FSMA forward.

Report on Pilot Studies

Report on Pilot Studies

You can download the entire 334 page document titled Pilot Projects for Improving Product Tracing along the Food Supply System – Final Report here. It was prepared by Jennifer McEntire of Leavitt Partners and Tejas Bhatt of the Institute of Food Technologists. According to the executive summary of the report (which is three pages long):

In September 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) to execute product tracing pilots as described in Section 204 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). IFT collaborated with representatives from more than 100 organizations—including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state departments of agriculture and public health, industry, consumer groups, and not-for-profit organizations—to implement the pilots. To complete the task, IFT conducted two product tracing pilots of foods (including ingredients) that had been implicated in food-borne illness outbreaks between 2005 and 2010, assessed the costs and benefits of efficient and effective methods for tracking the designated foods, and determined the feasibility of such methodologies (including the use of technology) being adopted by different sectors of the food industry. One food pilot focused on the tracing of chicken, peanuts, and spices in processed foods; the other pilot focused on the tracing of tomatoes.

The objectives of the pilot projects were 1) to identify and gather information on methods to improve product tracing of foods in the supply chain, and 2) to explore and evaluate methods to rapidly and effectively identify the recipient of food to prevent or mitigate a food-borne illness outbreak and to address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals as a result of such food being adulterated or mis-branded.

The recommendations that the report makes are as follows:

  1. From an overarching perspective, IFT recommends that FDA establish a uniform set of record keeping requirements for all FDA-regulated foods and not permit exemptions to record keeping requirements based on risk classification.
  2. FDA should require firms that manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold, or import food to identify and maintain records of CTEs and KDEs as determined by FDA.
  3. Each member of the food supply chain should be required to develop, document, and exercise a product tracing plan.
  4. FDA should encourage current industry-led initiatives and issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or use other similar mechanisms to seek stakeholder input.
  5. FDA should clearly and more consistently articulate and communicate to industry the information it needs to conduct product tracing investigations.
  6. FDA should develop standardized electronic mechanisms for the reporting and acquiring of CTEs and KDEs during product tracing investigations.
  7. FDA should accept summarized CTE and KDE data that are submitted through standardized reporting mechanisms and initiate investigations based on such data.
  8. If available, FDA should request more than one level of tracing data.
  9. FDA should consider adopting a technology platform that would allow efficient aggregation and analysis of data submitted in response to a request from regulatory officials. The technology platform should be accessible to other regulatory entities
  10. FDA should coordinate trace-back investigations and develop response protocols between state and local health and regulatory agencies, using existing commissioning and credentialing processes. In addition, FDA should formalize the use of industry subject matter experts in product tracing investigations.

Conclusion
In summary, IFT found that there are several areas (such as uniformity and standardization, improved record keeping, enhanced planning and preparedness, better coordination and communication, and the use of technology) in which industry improvements and enhancements to FDA’s processes would enable trace-backs and trace-forwards to occur more rapidly. There was a range of costs associated with improving product tracing capabilities for certain sectors of the industry based on the specific technologies used to achieve the data capture and communication objectives. Case studies demonstrated the range of public health benefits from reduction in illnesses from improved product tracing. The recommendations outlined in this final report will enable FDA to conduct more rapid and effective investigations during food-borne illness outbreaks and other product tracing investigations, significantly enhancing protection of public health.

No doubt, it will take some time for the industry to digest the entire document but it’s good progress that the FDA, under FSMA guidelines, is moving the process forward and that track-and-trace will now get more focus and attention.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

Bare Shelves at Walmart? $1.14 Billion in Strawberry Losses! What’s the Connection?

A story in Kevin Coupe’s Morning News Beat references Bloomberg as saying that: at a February 1, 2013 internal Walmart meeting, US CEO Bill Simon said that keeping shelves stocked has become a big problem, is “getting worse,” and is a “self-inflicted wound” that is the company’s “biggest risk.”

Where are my groceries?

Where are my groceries?

According to the piece, Walmart “has been trying to improve its restocking efforts since at least 2011, hiring consultants to walk the aisles and track whether hundreds of items are available. It even reassigned store greeters to replenish merchandise. The restocking challenge emerged as Wal-Mart was returning more merchandise to shelves after a previous effort to de-clutter its stores. Walmart’s inability to keep its shelves stocked coincides with slowing sales growth.”

While Bloomberg reports that Simon’s comments are taken from official minutes of the meeting, company spokesman David Tovar said they were “personal notes from one participant in the meeting and are not official company minutes,” and said that “there are a number of significant misinterpretations and misleading statements that do not accurately reflect the comments by Bill Simon or any other participant in the meeting.”

Tovar said that Walmart is happy with its in-stock positions.

Mr. Coupe then opines: No disrespect to Walmart, but I believe Tovar about as far as I can throw a supercenter. I’ve gotten a number of emails from folks in recent months suggesting that out-of-stocks has become a growing problem for Walmart, one that it has a hard time dealing with.

Coincidently, FreshPlaza recently reported that Walmart is donating $3 million to the University of Arkansas’ Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability to create and manage a national competitive grants program, awarding money for projects that will, among other things, expand where strawberries can be grown, enabling shorter trips for the berries between farm and consumer.

The story mentions that: “Strawberries are a highly perishable fruit with a short shelf life in the supply chain,” said Curt Rom, a horticulture professor for the Division of Agriculture, and part of the center’s leadership team. “Strawberries travel an average distance up to or exceeding 3,000 miles from farm to market.” Though prized for their delicate taste and texture, those same qualities can be the berries’ weakness – especially when hauled thousands of miles. It’s estimated that between the time the berries are picked to the time they reach the consumer, losses can reach 36 percent, with an annual value of $1.14 billion, Rom said.

Wow! $1.14 billion in losses – 36% of what’s harvested – between harvest and the consumer? Yikes, that’s a lot of berries! That’s a lot of money! Other academic and industry research shows that half of this loss is due to improper temperature management. One potential consequence of this loss: out-of-stocks.  If you’re a retailer and you’re expecting pallets of strawberries to replenish your shelves and discover upon delivery that they’ve spoiled, you may end up with an empty shelf and an unhappy customer who will turn to another retailer to buy their strawberries.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that any Walmart out-of-stocks are specifically strawberries but the connection between the two stories is meant to drive home a point about the complexities and challenges associated with managing the supply chain to keep inventory in stock. If it is difficult to do for non-perishable items, imagine how much more challenging it is to ensure your high value produce, meat, seafood, poultry and dairy can be.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

Monetizing the Risks of Food Safety and Traceability

Before you eat that...

Before you eat that…

Yum! Brands, owners of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut is suffering a significant brand hit due to issues associated with chicken suppliers in China who delivered product to local KFC restaurants that was apparently tainted with too much antibiotics. According to Yum! Brands, it has terminated its relationship with the supplier (Liuhe Group) and will work with others to phase out smaller suppliers and put a more stringent emphasis on food safety. The damage, however, was done…to the bottom line.

We’ve talked frequently with prospective customers, journalists and analysts about the potential costs of a food safety/recall issue on a major global brand.  This story that appeared on the Bloomberg website on February 25 documents some of those costs:

  • Sales at locations in China open at least 12 months fell 6% in the fourth quarter, the first quarterly drop in three years.
  • Comparable store sales in China may decline 25% in the first quarter.
  • Yum stock on the New York Stock Exchange fell after the news from  $66.32 to $64.35 before rebounding slightly.
  • The stock value has dropped 2.5% this year while the S&P Restaurants index gained 4.2%.

It’s hard to say what the long term impact will be for KFC in China and the Yum! Brands family of companies worldwide but the point is clear: Sure, this happened in China but the news is now global. Would you think twice about going into a KFC in California or New York? I admit, I would wonder. If you’re a global, national or even regional brand, you simply must think about this because it could happen to you.

This is yet another example of the critical importance of being able to monitor and manage the cold supply chain. In this case, the product was apparently adulterated with antibiotics. What if it had been salmonella? Listeria?  There are simply too many suppliers, too many linkages from production to retail to rely on antiquated monitoring systems and an incomplete view of your supply chain. You need the data to protect yourself, your reputation and your customers.  Electronic data records captured by tracking the product from the supplier through every leg of the supply chain provides not only information about the supplier but also about proper handling that helps ensure food safety.

It will be interested to see what the long term impacts are…not only on Yum but for the other major global brands who, hopefully, look at this news and take measures to ensure that the next story isn’t about them.

PS: On February 27, World Poultry announced that KFC has cut more than 1,000 farms from its supplier network in China in a measure to ensure food safety following the recent tainted chicken scandal.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

 

Consumers Are Willing to Pay More for Fresh, Sustainable Packaging But…

Packaging is only one component of ensuring freshness and quality

Packaging is only one component of ensuring freshness and quality

Consumers are interested in fresher, higher quality produce. According to an article in Progressive Grocer: consumers are likely to pay more for value-added features that relate to freshness and sustainability, according to a global study conducted by Ipsos InnoQuest. When asked which potential packaging features would motivate them to spend more, consumers indicated they would be inclined to pay more for packaging that:

  • Keeps food fresh longer (55 percent)
  • Is environmentally friendly (55 percent)
  • Is re-usable (42 percent)
  • Is easier to use (39 percent)

In the article, Lauren Demar, Global CEO of Ipsos Innoquest says: Packaging plays a key role in consumer packaged goods innovation, whether marketers are introducing new products or trying to invigorate existing brands. As a key driver in the consumer’s decision to buy, packaging features can often be leveraged to charge a premium. Demar then goes on to suggest that, because consumers place a higher value on packaging that preserves freshness and provides environmental benefits, marketers may have the opportunity “to win over consumers and increase revenues through innovative package designs that deliver sustainability of freshness as well as sustainability of the planet.”

Improving packaging is important but it is only one factor in ensuring that perishable foods are kept fresh. Simply having a super package with lining materials that reduce ethylene (for example) doesn’t do anything to reduce or eliminate issues related to temperature mishandling that can dramatically impact freshness, quality and food safety. While it’s great to see that consumers say that they are willing to spend a bit more for the benefits above, it’s not reasonable for the consumer to understand all of the elements that go into delivering fresh, high quality food.  That’s up to the industry to manage and the consumers look to retailers and brand owners to deliver on this promise.  Learn more about the impact of temperature on quality here.

Kevin Payne
Senior Director of Marketing

Using RFID Tags to Improve IT Asset Management

Keeping track of high value or difficult to locate assets represents a huge challenge to a variety of industries and Information Technology is not immune.  Locating servers, laptops, blades, storage, etc. can be time consuming and costly.  Our guest blogger, Jackie Luo, CEO of Intelleflex partner E-ISG Asset Intelligence provides perspectives on how RFID can help.  Take it away Jackie….

Managing Your IT Assets Can Be Made Simpler with RFID

Managing Your IT Assets Can Be Made Simpler with RFID

 

RFID-enabling data centers are on the way to becoming a $1 billion business. A new survey released by Frost & Sullivan says that the RFID data center market was worth $96.3 million last year, and will grow to $953 million in 2017. The declining cost and increasing performance of RFID tags are coming at the time when IT hardware asset tracking is facing significant challenges from all fronts. That’s why this represents a perfect opportunity for the RFID technology to expand its scale.

There are several forces that challenge the task of accurately tracking IT hardware assets in an enterprise:

  • The shortened lifecycle of computing devices due to more frequent upgrades. The shortened lifecycle applies to not only the individual computing devices such as laptops and mobile phones, but also servers and other hardware equipment in data centers.
  • The security risks posed by unrecognized devices accessing the network. These could be devices brought by individual departments that haven’t made it into the asset registry. They could be devices that have been brought to work by employees (Bring Your Own Devices).
  • The regulatory requirements for IT departments to maintain accurate count of machines that have access to corporate data such as Sarbanes Oxley. There are more requirements for specific industries like financial services, government and government contractors, and healthcare.

To overcome the challenge of maintaining an accurate count of IT hardware inventory, IT departments need to find a cost effective way to conduct more frequent inventory audits. For the IT department, inventory audits have always been a big hassle, if not a disruptive task. They need to send out emails asking people to report their devices. They need to send out people to secured data rooms to monitor the manual inventory audit, which usually takes weeks to complete because IT departments are always short staffed. The servers and blades in data rooms are hard to tag because of their shapes. The serial numbers are hardly visible.

RFID tags and readers can now solve this problem cost effectively. There are passive RFID tags, such as Battery Assisted Passive tags (BAP), which cost less than active tags but have longer reading range. Their performance is more reliable around metal objects like racks and servers. With these battery assisted passive RFID tags, one can use an RFID reader to finish inventorying a data room in a couple of hours instead of a few weeks. More importantly, the process is not disruptive to a normal work day, so IT departments can perform an audit more frequently. IT departments can also tag the individual devices with these types of RFID tags. Similarly, they can also try to perform spot inventory auditing more frequently. They may not capture all the individual devices, but they will add more interim location data of these devices to the asset history.

There is still a lot of myth associated with RFID. Fortunately, most of the assumptions about the cost and performance of RFID tags are inaccurate. For IT departments, it’s time to evaluate RFID-based solutions and consider taking advantages of the technology. For more information, you can download a recently published white paper Why has the development in RFID technology made asset management more urgent?

Jackie Luo – CEO
E-ISG Asset Intelligence

Jackie Luo, CEO, E-ISG Asset Intelligence

Jackie Luo, CEO, E-ISG Asset Intelligence

 

 

 

 

E-ISG Asset Intelligence provides IT asset management solutions that track the lifecycle information of IT hardware and software. Their solutions have integrated the Intelleflex Cloud based ZEST® Data Services, and can therefore connect to RFID readers out of box. You can reach Jackie at jackie.luo@e-isg.com