The Supply Chain Index - 2018

The Supply Chain Index
Gauging Supply Chain Improvement
6/15/2018
By Lora Cecere
Founder and CEO
Supply Chain Insights LLC
and Alina Beskrovna
Research Associate
Supply Chain Insights LLC

Contents
Executive Summary
Overview of the Supply Chain Index
Balance
Strength
Resiliency
The Definition of the Index: Putting It All Together
Visualizing the Patterns
Industry-Specific Results
Automotive
Chemical
Food
Household Products
Pharmaceutical
Telecommunications
Recommendations
Conclusion
Appendix: Mathematical Calculations Behind the Index Ranking
Open Content Research
Other Reports about the Index
About Supply Chain Insights LLC
About Lora Cecere
About Alina Beskrovna
3
4
4
4
5
7
8
9
9
12
17
21
24
29
32
32
33
36
36
37
37
37

Executive Summary
The supply chain is a complex, nonlinear system. Supply chain excellence is a balancing act of
competing priorities of growth, cost, inventory and asset strategies. The Supply Chain Index is a
methodology to measure supply chain improvement of this metrics portfolio as shown in Figure 1. We
term this the Effective Frontier.
Figure 1. The Effective Frontier
Improvement happens most quickly for companies with the most to gain. As companies become more
effective in balancing supply chain metrics, it becomes harder and harder to drive improvement.
Supply chain excellence is defined here as outperforming the peer group while driving supply chain
improvement at a faster rate than the industry.
Today, this is tough. At the beginning of the last decade, companies were able to make rapid
improvement on the Effective Frontier. This was the dawn of business-to-business computing, the
building of the global supply chain, and the automation of supply chain processes. Now the story is
different. As will be seen in this report, for nine out of ten companies, supply chain progress is stalled.
To help companies gauge improvement, we developed the Supply Chain Index methodology. At its
core, the Supply Chain Index is a ranking of supply chain improvement across a balanced portfolio of
metrics, measured over time, within an industry peer group. In this report, we apply the methodology
to six industry sectors (automotive, chemical, food, household products, pharmaceutical, and
telecommunications) for two time periods, 2006-2016 and 2010-2016. The first looks at improvement
across the Great Recession and post-recession periods, and the second shorter period evaluates
post-recession results. As will be seen, improvement in metrics results was faster pre-recession when
supply chains were smaller and more regional.

Overview of the Supply Chain Index
The Supply Chain Index™ is based on the calculation of three factors—balance, strength, and
resiliency—based on patterns at the intersection of the four metrics of the Effective Frontier: Growth,
Operating Margin, Inventory Turns and Return on Invested Capital (ROIC). Each of the three factors
contributes one-third to the final Index ranking.
1) Balance: The vector trajectory of the pattern between year-over-year growth and Return on
Invested Capital.
2) Strength: The vector trajectory of the pattern between operating margin and inventory turns.
3) Resiliency: The tightness of the pattern at the intersection of inventory turns and operating
margin.
Balance
Balance in the supply chain is a constant struggle. The two metrics which
comprise our balance measure are Year-over-Year Revenue Growth and
Return on Invested Capital. Return on Invested Capital is a less well-known
metric compared to Return on Assets (ROA). We use ROIC because it is a
broader metric that encompasses all assets, while Return on Assets has a
narrower focus. Our research indicates that ROIC has a better correlation with stock market
capitalization and provides a broad perspective on cash flow generation and profitability based on
shareholder equity. The formula used for ROIC is:
𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛 𝑜𝑛 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 =
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 + 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑎𝑥 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟′ 𝑠𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦
The goal is to drive higher returns than the market rate of the cost of capital.
The balance measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory
of the pattern between Growth and ROIC for a specific time period (see the Appendix for more details
on the formula). To understand this measurement, imagine a four-quadrant grid from high school
algebra with Growth and ROIC on the two axes. In our calculation, the overall trajectory of this vector
from Year 0 (2006) to Year 10 (2016) is simplified into a single value which represents the company’s
ability to balance year-over-year Growth and ROIC. Companies that were able to drive improvement
in both metrics score the best, while companies that deteriorated in both metrics do the worst.
Strength
A successful supply chain is a strong one. Supply chain leaders strive to
deliver year-over-year improvements. There is tension between operating
margin and inventory turns. For most supply chain leaders, these are some of
the most important measures of their performance. Not only are they important,

they are also more directly influenced by supply chain decisions than broader corporate metrics. It is
for this reason they are the two components of our strength factor in the Supply Chain Index.
The strength measure in the Supply Chain Index is a mathematical calculation of the vector trajectory
of the pattern between inventory turns and operating margin for the period of 2006 to 2016 (see the
Appendix for more details on the formula). Like the balance factor, imagine a four-quadrant grid from
high school algebra. Inventory Turns and Operating Margin performance are graphed on an annual
basis from an origin point representing performance on the two metrics at Year 0 (2006). The overall
trajectory of this vector from Year 0 (2006) to Year 16 (2016) is simplified into a single value which
represents strength. Improvement on both metrics simultaneously is graphically shown as movement
to the upper right quadrant with increasing values for both inventory turns and operating margin over
the period.
Resiliency
Resiliency is an adjective easily tossed around as one of the key qualities of a
successful supply chain in today’s volatile world. However, the concept of
resiliency lacks an industry definition. It is more difficult to define and there is
rarely clarity among stakeholders as to what resiliency is or should be.
As we plotted chart after chart at the intersection of inventory turns and operating margin, we could
see that some supply chains had very tight patterns at the intersection of these two metrics while
other companies had wild swings. We wanted to find a way to measure the variation. After evaluating
several methods to determine the pattern in the orbit chart, we settled upon the Euclidean Mean
Distance between the points.
These results were published in our March 2014 report: Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: Improving
Supply Chain Resiliency, where we defined resiliency as the tightness of the pattern at the
intersection of inventory turns and operating margin (see the Appendix for more details on the
formula). These metrics, critical for any supply chain, are components of both the Strength and
Resiliency metrics in our Supply Chain Index model. As shown in Table 1, the resiliency of the supply
chain varies considerably by industry. Household products is the most resilient and
telecommunications the least. Automotive lacked resiliency during the recession, but improved
resiliency post-recession. It is important to note, and remember while reviewing the data that follows,
that a lower number for resiliency is an indicator of a tighter (as in better) pattern and greater
reliability in results over the time period. The resiliency score is the mean value. Telecommunications
has the highest value and struggled the most with resiliency.

Table 1. Supply Chain Resiliency by Industry

The Definition of the Index:
Putting It All Together
Each of the factors of the Supply Chain Index—Balance, Strength and Resiliency—comprises one-
third of the final ranking. The values are compiled in a matrix (shown in Table 2), which is created for
each industry sector peer group across the time periods which are analyzed. The Index ranking is
calculated following these three steps:
1. Rank the companies within each factor.
2. Calculate the average ranking for each company across the factors.
3. Rank this average ranking within the peer group. This is the final Index ranking.
It is important to note that in cases where a company was identified as being an outlier in terms of
balance, strength, and/or resiliency within their respective peer groups, it is removed from the Index
calculation (see the Appendix for details on outlier determination).
Table 2. Supply Chain Index Ranking System

Visualizing the Patterns
Since the Supply Chain Index is based on the intersection of metrics over time, we have found an
orbit chart to be the best method for visualizing the patterns. An orbit chart plots year-over-year
performance on two metrics (see the example of The TJX Companies, Inc. in Figure 2) and enables
the visualization of a pattern. The “Best Scenario” is indicated in red in the upper-right corner of the
plot. The metrics’ averages for the period are shown in the box under the TJX stock symbol. In this
example, it is clear TJX has made great progress towards the best scenario. However, most
companies have not.
Figure 2. Example of an Orbit Chart
While progress may be driven on a project basis, or within a division, it is becoming more and more
difficult to drive a positive trend at this intersection. Companies making the most progress have a
holistic definition of the end-to-end supply chain and are strong in the use of analytics. Strong skills in
supply chain planning help companies to translate supply chain strategy into feasible trade-offs. It is a
constant balancing act.

Industry-Specific Results
The Supply Chain Index, in this report, is applied to six separate industry sector peer groups:
automotive; chemical; food; household products; pharmaceutical; and telecommunications. We
measure two time periods, 2006-2016 and 2010-2016, in order to examine relative improvement
during and after the recession.
Automotive
The Automotive industry struggled to regain balance and maintain momentum after the economic
downturn in 2007. As can be seen in Table 3a, Tesla Inc. is an obvious outlier, scoring 200 times the
industry average on resiliency. As a result, it was removed from the Supply Chain Index calculations.
Ford continued to lag at the bottom of the charts. The company struggles to drive supply chain
improvement.
Table 3a. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Automotive Companies (2006-2016)
The company driving the greatest improvement for 2006-2016 is Daimler while is Suzuki had
the greatest improvement in the post-recession period (shown in Table 3b). Subaru
outperformed in second place over the longer time horizon, while Toyota drove higher levels of
improvement in the post-recessionary period.

Table 3b. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Automotive Companies 2010-2016
Ford, like most of the Automotive industry, is losing ground year-over year. The company is a
laggard. These trends can be seen in the two orbit charts below. Note the positive trend of continuous
improvement for Suzuki Motors. Note that while Ford outperforms on inventory turns and operating
margin, they are losing ground on the performance metrics and lack resiliency (shown by the wild
swings). Suzuki is gaining ground against the industry peer group but is underperforming against
Ford. It is hard for a company that is outperforming their peer group to drive improvement.

Figure 3. Revenue Growth vs. Return on Invested Capital for Suzuki Motors and Ford (2010-2016)
Figure 4. Inventory Turns vs. Operating Margin for Suzuki Motors and Ford (2010-2016)

Chemical
Sitting four to five layers back in the supply chain, the chemical industry struggled to maintain
momentum through the last economic downturn and drive recovery. In the last decade, costs and
waste were pushed backwards in the value chain by downstream trading partners, creating a barrier
for the chemical manufacturer.
Of the industries profiled in the report, the chemical industry struggled the most to remain strong. It
scored the lowest value in the industry average for the balance factor of -0.05 and experienced the
most significant drop in strength of all the industries studied. However, since 2010 the industry has
made a remarkable comeback, primarily due to oil prices. Even though the industry still struggles with
a negative balance metric of 0.12 (third lowest after telecommunications and household products), its
positive change in balance is unprecedented in other industries.
At the same time, the industry has become less resilient. In the post-recessionary period, the industry
dropped 33% in resiliency, scoring 0.89 and landing third after household products and automotive.
For most companies, this stems from the lack of capability to translate price changes to action in the
value chain. The industry is very price sensitive, and the planning systems are largely based on
volume. The measures taken to drive growth during the recession took several years to dramatically
improve balance. The Supply Chain Index for the 2006-2016 period is shown in Table 4a, while the
post-recessionary analysis of 2010-2016 is seen in Table 4b.

Table 4a. Supply Chain Index for the Chemical Industry for the Period of 2006-2016

Table 4b. Supply Chain Index for the Chemical Industry for the Period of 2010-2016

To visualize the differences in the factor rankings, we show orbit charts of a company that performed
well against a company with average performance. Since balance calculations are based on annual
growth and return on invested capital, here we share those metrics for DowDuPont vs. BASF. BASF
is a stronger performer than DowDuPont, but DowDuPont is driving more improvement. Note the
decline in performance for BASF in 2016 on inventory turns and the loss in growth.
Figure 5. Revenue Growth vs. Return on Invested Capital for DowDuPont and BASF (2010-2016)

Figure 6. Inventory Turns vs. Operating Margin for DowDuPont and BASF (2010-2016)

Food
In contrast to the Chemical industry, the Food industry is a higher-performing industry on the Supply
Chain Index, driving higher levels of improvement. Post-recession, consumers wanting less and less
packaged foods have rejected products from the big food manufacturers, driving declining growth
rates. Driving improvement in declining markets is difficult. Overall, General Mills balanced
improvement and performance while companies like Kellogg and Danone have both taken a
downturn on the Index. In contrast, Mondelēz has made significant progress on strength, but severely
underperforms on balance and resiliency. The company with the best performance and levels of
improvement is General Mills.
Fresh Del Monte Produce made a slight trade-off in resiliency for a vast improvement in balance
and strength. The Supply Chain Index for the Food Industry is shown in Tables 5a and 5b.

Table 5a. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Food Companies for 2006-2016

Table 5b. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Food Companies for 2010-2016
In figures 7 and 8 we contrast the performance of Kellogg and Danone. Notice the backward slide of
both companies on the balanced portfolio.

Figure 7. Revenue Growth vs. Return on Invested Capital for Kellogg and Danone (2010-2016)
Figure 8. Inventory Turns vs. Operating Margin for Kellogg and Danone (2010-2016)

Household Products
The Household Products industry, with a decline in growth, also struggles to balance asset strategies
with a negative impact on the balance ranking. The rise in complexity in the product portfolio over the
course of the last decade took a toll.
Despite the slight drop in the strength ranking, Household Products is the strongest supply chain (rate
of improvement at the intersection of inventory turns and operating margin) of the five analyzed.
In improvement, Beiersdorf has managed to remain in the top three despite a slight drop in balance
and resiliency. Procter & Gamble (P&G) remained at the very bottom of the list, continuing with wide
swings at the intersection of inventory turns and operating margin, and thus scoring badly on the
resiliency factor. Clorox is ranked slightly higher than Procter & Gamble, similarly struggling with
regaining balance and improving strength.
Over the past seven years, growth has slowed for P&G. In addition, the leadership of P&G has
thrown the supply chain out of balance with a focus on inventory with a detrimental impact in costs as
compared to others in the peer group. This has a negative impact on the rankings.
Table 6a. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Household Product Companies (2006-2016)

Table 6b. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Food Companies (2010-2016)
Note Church & Dwight’s improvement. P&G’s performance degraded with the acquisition of Gillette
and only rebounded with the divestitures in 2015-2016. In Figures 9 and 10 we contrast the
performance of Church & Dwight and P&G.
Figure 9. Revenue Growth vs. Return on Invested Capital for Church & Dwight and P&G (2010-2016)

Figure 10. Inventory Turns vs. Operating Margin for Church & Dwight and P&G (2010-2016)

Pharmaceutical
Overall, the Pharmaceutical industry, a laggard in supply chain management, is driving the fastest
rate of improvement of the six industries in this report. The opportunity is great. The Pharmaceutical
industry carries three times the level of inventory than the prior two industries, and they have been
slow to adopt more advanced supply chain practices. We often see that companies with high margins
have less drive to get serious about supply chain management. Their progress in supply chain
management lags household products. High operating margin present within the industry has enabled
pharmaceutical companies to prosper with less mature supply chain practices. However, recent
changes in the market, with the rise of generic brands, and slowing growth create a different
environment. As a result, we see more and more pharmaceutical companies getting serious on
driving supply chain excellence.
Post-recession, the pharmaceutical industry became noticeably more resilient, but dropped slightly on
balance and strength. Biogen and Novo Nordisk maintained their leadership as the top two. Abbott
Laboratories has plummeted from the 7th place to 30th place, dropping most significantly on balance.
Johnson & Johnson also lost its position, experiencing the most drastic drop in balance in the
industry.
Remarkably, Merck and Company has moved from the third quartile to first place. It lost slightly on
strength but came back strong on balance and resiliency. This is a good example of a company
driving improvement when there is a lot of improvement to be made.

Table 7a. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Pharmaceutical Companies (2006-2016)

Table 7b. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Pharmaceutical Companies (2010-2016)

Our pharmaceutical orbit chart examples compare Novo Nordisk and Abbott Laboratories. Novo
Nordisk leads the peer group in the resiliency ranking for 2010-2016. Note the stark difference in the
charts.
Figure 11. Revenue Growth vs. Return on Invested Capital for Novo Nordisk and Abbott Laboratories (2010-2016)

Figure 12. Inventory Turns vs. Operating Margin for Novo Nordisk and Abbott Laboratories (2010-2016)

Telecommunications
The Telecommunications industry scored the worst in terms of the Supply Chain Index. Due to market
pressures, the industry overall lost heavily on both balance and strength rankings.
Zayo Group Holdings, Harris, and Belden remained in the top 5. ZTE, Sprint, and Vodafone stayed
within the bottom tier of the ranking. Motorola has moved from the upper middle of the ranking (11th
place) to 3rd place, losing in resiliency, but improving significantly in balance and strength. Finisar
made the most progress, climbing to the very top thanks to its remarkable improvements in strength
and resiliency. The winner for performance and improvement is Cisco Systems.
Table 8a. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Telecommunications Companies (2006-2016)

Table 8b. Balance, Strength and Resiliency Rankings for Pharmaceutical Companies (2010-2016)
Here we compare the performance of Cisco Systems and Motorola across two orbit charts. While
Cisco Systems has balanced performance and improvement, Motorola fell and then had to drive
improvement to regain ground.

Figure 13. Revenue Growth vs. Return on Invested Capital for Cisco Systems and Motorola (2010-2016)
Figure 14. Inventory Turns vs. Operating Margin for Cisco Systems and Motorola (2010-2016)

Recommendations
Our goal is to help companies drive a deeper conversation in the boardroom on supply chain
improvement. Metrics comparisons are complex and should never be viewed solely in a spreadsheet.
Instead, they need to be viewed as a balanced portfolio.
A mistake many companies make is viewing these metrics in isolation through singular views.
Instead, they need to be plotted, based on year-over-year trends, using ratios to understand the
trade-offs on the Effective Frontier. In the process of evaluating progress, a company needs to be
evaluated within its own industry sector, not across the board. Within this evaluation, the questions
should be:
• Is the company driving year-over-year progress on a balanced portfolio of metrics?
• Is there strength against the peer group?
• Is this progress reliable with predictable results?
Driving supply chain improvement is tough work. The goal of the Supply Chain Index is to provide a
measuring stick for supply chain leaders.
Conclusion
The supply chain is a complex system with interrelated metrics. We believe that supply chain
excellence is defined by driving improvement while outperforming peers. The higher the level of
performance, the more difficult it is to drive improvement. On the journey, each company has a
different potential. This is driven by product categories, labor inputs, market share, commodity
markets and geographic reach. While the supply chain leader cannot change many of these factors,
they can improve the ability of the organization to drive year-over-year improvements.

Appendix: Detailing the Mathematical
Calculations Behind the Index Ranking
The specific methodology and development of the three factors is described below.
Strength
Consider a scatter plot of operating margin and inventory turns for a specific company. Let iOM
denote the operating margin of the ith time period (e.g. ith year), iIT denote the inventory turns of the
ith time period and n denote the total number of periods under consideration. The strength measure
(S) is defined as





 −
+
−
−
=
1
1
1
1
1
1
IT
ITIT
OM
OMOM
n
S nn
The denominator reflects that there are n-1 differences between n time periods. Figure A depicts the
intersection of operating margin and inventory turns for an example company. The difference in
operating margin and inventory turns between the first and last time period is shown.
Figure A. Inventory Turns and Operating Margin Intersection for an Example Company

Resiliency
Consider a scatter plot of operating margin and inventory turns for a specific company. Let dij denote
the Euclidean distance between a pair of points i and j and let m denote the total number of pairs.
The resiliency measure (R) is defined as the mean distance of all possible pairs of points at the
intesection. That is,

=
i ij
ijd
m
R
1
Figure B shows an example of the opertaing margin and inventory turns intersection. Table A shows
the distances between every possible pair of points at the intersection. The resiliency is calculated
from the mean of the distance values and is equal to 0.7335. (A higher resiliency score indicates a
lack of resiliency while a small value means that the company had tight control of the metrics
portfolio.)
Figure B. Inventory Turns and Operating Margin Intersection for an Example Company
Table A. Euclidean Distances for an Example Company.
0.013255
0.18865 0.17549
1.061544 1.0484 0.872912
0.901407 0.888264 0.712778 0.16014
0.766595 0.753434 0.577946 0.295086 0.135114
1.630622 1.617476 1.441988 0.569077 0.729216 0.864097

Balance
Consider a scatter plot of revenue growth and return on invested capital for a specific company. The
balance measure (B) is defined similar to the strength measure but now at the intersection of revenue
growth and return on invested capital. Let iREV denote the revenue growth of the ith time period,
iROIC denote the return on invested capital of the ith time period and n denote the total number of
periods under consideration. Balance is defined as





 −
+
−
−
=
1
1
1
1
1
1
ROIC
ROICROIC
REV
REVREV
n
B nn
.
Alternative Measures Considered
Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is a traditional method to summarize multi-dimensional data.
We considered measures commonly applied with PCA based on eigenvalues and eigenvectors. (e.g.,
the condition index, percentage of variance explained by the first principal component). Although
these measures were reasonable they did not distinguish between orbit plots that were visually
different as well as simpler approaches. We also considered other measures based on the distances
(e.g., sum, maximum, minimum and the coefficient of variation of the distances). The mean distance
was finally selected to measure the compactness of a set of points. In fact, a similar measure called
cohesion is frequently used in cluster analysis to measure the compactness of a set of points. Rather
than taking the sum of distances (as in cohesion), we consider the mean to account for the potentially
different number of points for each company.
Outlier Determination
In order to ensure consistency of the financial data used, we eliminated companies who were
identified as extreme outliers in terms of balance, strength, and/or resiliency within their respective
peer groups. To accomplish accurate outlier identification, we employed the Tukey boxplot method - a
histogram-like method for calculating statistically fitting upper and lower bounds for each data set.
The initial data set is first divided into four quartiles. The interquartile range, abbreviated IQR, is
calculated as the difference between quartiles three and one: IQR = Q3 – Q1. Lower and upper
bounds are calculated as L=Q1 –1.5×IQR and U=Q3 + 1.5×IQR respectively. Data points located
below the lower bound or above the upper bound are outliers. (Companies identified as outliers are
highlighted in blue in the report tables.)

Open Content Research
This report is shared using the principles of Open Content research. It is intended for you to read and
share to drive improved supply chain decisions. Please share this data freely within your company
and across your industry. All we ask for in return is proper attribution when you use the materials. We
publish under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United
States and you will find our citation policy here.
Other Reports about the Index
Supply Chain Metrics That Matter: Improving Supply Chain Resiliency
Supply Chains to Admire 2017

About Supply Chain Insights LLC
Founded in February, 2012 by Lora Cecere, Supply Chain Insights LLC is focused on delivering
independent, actionable, and objective advice for supply chain leaders. If you need to know
which practices and technologies make the biggest difference to corporate performance, turn to us.
We are a company dedicated to this research. We help you understand supply chain trends, evolving
technologies and which metrics matter.
About Lora Cecere
Lora Cecere (twitter ID @lcecere) is the Founder of Supply Chain Insights LLC and
the author of popular enterprise software blog Supply Chain Shaman currently read
by 15,000 supply chain professionals. She also writes as a Linkedin Influencer and
is a contributor to Forbes. She has written six books. The first book, Bricks Matter,
(co-authored with Charlie Chase) published in 2012. The second book, The
Shaman’s Journal 2014, published in September 2014; the third book, Supply
Chain Metrics That Matter, published in December 2014; the fourth book, The
Shaman’s Journal 2015, published in August 2015, the fifth book, The Shaman’s
Journal 2016, published in June 2016 and the sixth book, The Shaman’s Journal 2017, published in
July 2017.
With over 16 years as a research analyst with AMR Research, Altimeter Group, and Gartner
Group and now as the Founder of Supply Chain Insights, Lora understands supply chain. She has
worked with over 600 companies on their supply chain strategy and is a frequent speaker on the
evolution of supply chain processes and technologies. Her research is designed for the early adopter
seeking first mover advantage.
About Alina Beskrovna
Alina is a Research Associate with Supply Chain Insights. Born in the Ukraine,
Alina was previously a financial strategy developer for a former Financial Minister
of Estonia and served as the President of the US Embassy Youth Council
Ukraine. She also worked as an International Business Analyst for Lehigh Small
Business Development Center.
Alina holds an M.Sc. degree in Applied Mathematics from Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
and an MBA in Finance from Lehigh University. At Lehigh, Alina was a recipient of
a prestigious Global Village-Iacocca Scholarship. At Supply Chain Insights, Alina
researches and develops the Supply Chains to Admire report and contributes to the monthly
publication of the Supply Chain Metrics That Matter Series. In her spare time, Alina enjoys active
outdoor activities, especially hiking. Her goal is to hike all the US National Parks in the next 5 years.

The Supply Chain Index - 2018

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Supply Chain Index - 2018

Similar to The Supply Chain Index - 2018 (20)

More from Lora Cecere

More from Lora Cecere (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Supply Chain Index - 2018