> Leigh Meyers wrote:
>>
>> When I worked for a local department store, scanning inventory,
>> the scanner was satellite linked to a distributor in the central
>> valley(california), not the corporate headquarters.
>>
>> I'm not questioning the vertical intergration of the company, but
>> it isn't as monolithic as all that. Some processes are much more
>> efficient when they are decentralized and WM know that and
>> utilizes it, like most national companies. Otherwise JIT inventory
>> would just be another seemingly good idea that no one ever tried,
>> and most of the LTL trucking companies(although walmart trucks
>> their own) would have gone out of business years ago.
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that Wal-Mart isn't
> that centralized, or that centralization itself isn't a good thing?
> Because Wal-Mart is that centralized, and given the way they've been
> kicking retail ass, it's hard to argue that it doesn't work too well.
>
I was attempting to clarify the extent of:
> *Everything* is coordinated out of Bentonville;
That's all.
There's a place for centralization, and a place for de-.
When it comes to 99%(+-?) of the logistics and distribution, the "smart money" seems to go with the de-. It appear to be centralized. Until the manager @ HQ emails the manager at the distribution center with a list, and and instructions to do it.
UPS keeps "fast ship" stock for many national companies. Does that mean they are centralized vertically within those companies, or just part of a centralized plan?
Leigh www.leighm.net