Wednesday, July 8, 2009

AGPL v3 Touches Web Services

Nov
20
AGPL v3 Touches Web Services
Filed Under (FOSS Ecosystem) by Josh Chalifour (see bio)


The Free Software Foundation (FSF) issued a press release on its newly published Affero General Public License (AGPL) version 3. This license affects the modification and distribution of software oriented toward Web-based services.

The popular adoption of Web-based applications as an alternate to in-house software implementations has meant that free and open source software developed for web-based usage can be picked up by companies outside of the ones that originally developed the software, modify it, and foist it upon the world as a new business without necessarily contributing the modifications back to the project. That is a bone of contention for many.

Last year, Tim O’Reilly posted about open source architecture in the context of Web 2.0

“…in the PC era, you have to distribute software in order to get other people to use it. You can distribute it in binary form or you can distribute it in source form, but no one escapes the act of distribution. And when software is distributed, open source companies have proven that giving access to the source makes good business strategy.

But in the world of Web 2.0, applications never need to be distributed. They are simply performed on the internet’s global stage. What’s more, they are global in scope, often running on hundreds or thousands or even hundreds of thousands of servers…”

From the developers’ perspective it means that you may have a competitor profiting from your work without the mutually beneficial reciprocity normally expected via FOSS methods. Suppose your company develops a web-based CRM application. Your strategy is to release the code under a FOSS license because you believe that the community you organize around this software will enable you to improve more quickly and with greater innovations for your customers (or maybe you have some other reason–doesn’t much matter what it is). Some other companies pick up the code, set up their businesses to provide the same services through the Web, as would be expected, and in so doing modify the code in some nice ways. Note, software is not distributed itself, it’s delivered as a web service.

In other words, the clients of the secondary companies benefit from the modifications and the code your company originally developed but the “rising tide” effect of FOSS development is neglected. As a Web-based service, the companies providing their own CRM service with the application aren’t required to release their modifications back to the community, so the company that originated the application wouldn’t benefit from the FOSS community in the same way that the non-Web-based app developer would. That’s a potentially big minus in incentives for developing web-based apps, FOSS-style.

If I understand correctly, the AGPL changes that situation. It puts web-based software usage onto a footing, which is more parallel to installed software usage. The AGPL is essentially the same license as the most recent GPL (with its patent-oriented concerns, etc.) except if you look particularly at section 13 you’ll notice that it requires offering the application’s modified code to people that interact with the application over a network. So this returns the ability to access, modify, and further distribute the code of even Web applications.

As this license gets used, I bet we’ll hear of unexpected uses for applications that were intended as web-based services, but that get implemented inside of a company instead (just because the code was available).

Dude, where (and how safe and pristine) is my hosted compensation data?

Sure, anyone observing the enterprise applications market and still naysaying the bright future of the software as a service (SaaS) on-demand deployment model and closely-related Web 2.0 technologies, is in serious denial or similarly delusional. He/she would sound similar to those lost souls that deny even a remote possibility of a global warming and climate changes, but, oops, this is not a political blog…

Anyway, recent predictions for 2008 by the two ZDNet bloggers, Phil Wainewright and Dion Hinchcliffe summarize well the reasons why these phenomena are not only here to stay, but to even take more slices out of the entire applications market pie. At this stage, I am still reluctant to believe that these advancements will render the traditional on-premise integrated (packaged) applications deployment mode completely obsolete any time soon.

In fact, as I have pointed out some ongoing drawbacks of SaaS applications in my recent series of articles, many comments on these two blog posts talk about similar lingering SaaS concerns. Most notably, there is still a discomfort among some users about their hosted data security and integrity, and what these SaaS vendors (and their hosting providers) can do about being more secure and compliant.

Further, in some malfeasance prone areas like managing sales and partners/channel compensation data, there is a pressing need to ensure higher levels of security and process controls for the purpose of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) compliance. For that reason, most publicly traded companies and other large-scale enterprises initially rejected the idea of SaaS because they thought they needed to take greater responsibility for their own SOX compliance.

This brings us to the realm of on-demand sales performance management (SPM) and enterprise incentives management (EIM), which has been one of the areas with a significant uptake of SaaS deployments. Indeed, companies of all sizes increasingly use on-demand packages for sales compensation and other incentives management, to accurately and strategically model and forecast commission/incentives costs and benefits, calculate commission and bonus earnings and gain real-time visibility into employees’ performance metrics.

These trends have prompted TEC to recently publish the pertinent up-and-coming Incentive and Compensation Management Evaluation Center.

On the other hand, the security and integrity of such remotely held sensitive data and processes has been in the back of every executive’s mind and a cause of serious anxiety. Compliance analysts keep on telling Chief Compliance Officers, Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) and Vice Presidents (VPs) of Finance that SaaS solutions are affordable, safe and effective alternatives to traditional on-premise software, but only to the extent that their service providers (vendors) have the necessary controls and audits in place. It is relatively easy to say “Sure, we can do this and that to protect your data”, but it is another thing entirely to have those process controls documented, practiced consistently and audited.

Enter Centive, the Burlington, Massachusetts, United States (US)-based provider of on-demand SPM solutions. More than 100 user companies with nearly 16,000 total individual subscribers currently use Centive Compel [evaluate this product], a salesforce.com AppExchange certified solution and a winner of multiple software press/media awards.

Good news is likely to continue coming from Centive in light of its ongoing quarterly product releases, such as Winter 2008. The gist of the latest enhancements would be along the lines of interactive dashboard analytics, which graphically present multi-dimensional, interactive earnings and performance data to help sales representatives and their managers better monitor and measure individual and team performance.

The Winter 2008 release of Compel also features enhanced reporting (dynamic reporting to analyze revenue and commission spend across any transaction or dimension attribute, such as customer, product, territory and region), enhanced document distribution and acceptance workflow, personal multi-currency management (enables local currency views for all sales reps and managers while providing corporate reporting in any relevant currency), and deeper application programming interface (API)-level integration with Salesforce.com [evaluate this product]. Last but not least, a sales commission cost analysis tool can detail the credit distribution and exact commission cost of every sales event, including commissions paid across all plans at all levels of the organization.

Prior to that, the Summer 2007 release of Compel featured enhanced custom reporting capability by adding calculated fields to reports on-the-fly, with full charting and graphing capabilities. The release also added the support for Adobe Flex 2.0 forms and introduced fully auditable and integrated crediting suite to provide crediting on combinations of dimensions, such as territory and product (with the support for direct credit, split credit, team credit, rollup credit, etc.).

Also noted has been the mid-2007 partnership with ADP, whereby Centive became a new original equipment manufacturer (OEM) partner for ADP. What that means is that ADP’s National Account Services (NAS) division has been selling Centive Compel as privately branded ADP Automated Incentive Compensation Management, and as a natural extension of ADP’s business. With $7.8 billion in revenue in 2006 and with about 600,000 customers worldwide, ADP is one of the first in the human resource management system(HRMS) and payroll industry to offer this SPM solution as part of a full-suite of on-demand HRMS offerings [evaluate the ADP Enterprise HRMS product].

Other related ADP on-demand services include, in part bolstered by the 2006 acquisition of Employease: management of payroll and HR systems; benefits administration; time & labor management; and administration of Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA). Both ADP and former Employease have been on-demand pioneers and savvies, which should bode well for “mashing-up” with Centive’s SPM solution. Further, ADP’s NAS division serves customers with over 1,000 employees, which should mean much more subscribers’ inflow for Centive down the track (currently, an average number of subscribers per customer for Centive is about 150 or so).

However, the most related news to our topic du jour would be the January 7, 2008 announcement by Centive that it has successfully completed an American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70 (SAS 70) Type II audit by Ernst & Young. Centive is now the first and only on-demand SPM vendor to be recognized as a SAS-70 Type II service provider.

The SAS 70 Type II report is internationally recognized as the authoritative benchmark of the AICPA against which service providers report control activities and processes to customers and their auditors. The Type II form of SAS 70 examination is the most stringent form; it not only includes the service organization’s description of controls related to information technology and security processes, but also includes detailed testing of these controls over a minimum six-month period. This is becoming an increasingly important issue as companies strive to conform to compliance initiatives such as SOX.

A SAS 70 Type II report basically serves as a proxy for a customer’s internal audit (for more on SAS 70, please see this great source ). So for example, when an XYZ Company undergoes its annual audit, the auditors will see that the company outsources some processes and stores some data off-site. They will ask for a SAS 70 Type II report from each service provider XYZ works with, and those reports will serve as a proxy for the security and integrity of the related systems.

We should, however, note that some companies have issued releases about providing a SAS 70 Type I report. This report serves no purpose for the vendor’s customers because it is not recognized by the AICPA as a proxy for an official audit. A Type I report merely says “A company has the following controls in place” but there is no audit to test those controls. For instance, Centive’s fierce competitor, Xactly Corporation issued exactly (no pun intended) such a press release back in early 2007.

Also, most SaaS vendors do provide SAS 70 Type II reports, but those reports typically come from their hosting partner (like CSC or MCI). Few vendors have put the proper controls in place and allocated the resources to undergo a six-month audit of their own internal controls. Again, that is what Centive has painstakingly done to supplement the Type II report from its hosting partner - CSC. In this market space, no other vendor currently provides a SAS 70 Type II report verifying their internal controls. For instance, Callidus Software [evaluate this product] and Xactly provide SAS 70 Type II’s from their hosting providers only.

Centive strongly thinks this will definitely help it with wooing future prospects, particularly amid publicly traded companies, but also with private companies that value the effort the vendor has put into ensuring it has the controls and processes in place (and validated by an independent third party) to protect their sensitive data. Centive is optimistic that the audit will make a difference in about half or more of the deals the company hopes to close in 2008.

On the down side, however, the hefty investments by Centive, mentioned above, on product development and the SAS 70 Type II audit will only postpone the break-even point, whereby the company should finally reach profitability. Also, I am not sure whether these moves can address Centive’s need for more international expansion. For more on Centive’s challenges, see TEC’s earlier series of articles on the vendor.

Hence, dear readers, do you feel comfortable enough to turn to on-demand solutions, and, in your vendor selections, do you believe the the SAS 70 Type II compliance audit and safeguards should impact the success or failure of your SOX compliance efforts?

Do you feel now that SaaS companies like Centive are able to offer the security and process controls needed to fully support SOX compliance initiatives for their customers. Do you also think Centive’s sizable investment to hereby leapfrog (or separate from) competitors was worthwhile?

Ask the Experts: Approaches to Data Mining ERP

I am a student of IT Management; I have an ERP course and I am supposed to write an article to review new aspects of ERP systems. I’ve decided to explore the reasons for using data mining techniques in ERP systems—and to look at different modules to which these techniques have been applied. I am going to prepare a framework to determine which ERP vendors use data mining techniques and whether these techniques are more effective in particular modules.

I would be thankful if you could provide me with any kind of information related to this research. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

We submitted this to our analyst team—here’s what they had to say:

Overview: Data mining is not just the act of choosing the right reports by whatever breakdown an ERP vendor has provided. Data mining means using data that has been collected for analytics—that is, looking at patterns, trends, and opportunities, and even going further to provide feedback in the business processes.

LESLIE SATENSTEIN
Data mining in ERP (which can also be considered business intelligence [BI]) is a very large topic and is very module- or industry-specific. In banking, for example, data mining is used in real time to determine patterns of credit and debit card transactions, looking for fraudulent use. It is also used to search for anomalies in funds transfers, again mainly looking for fraud. Data mining in banking is used to look for out-of-the-normal business transactions such as bad debt protection, to examine historical data to search for market trends, to perform reviews of service profitabilities, and more.

In sales, it is used to review the performance of salesmen, customers, buyers, and vendors, as well as product sales, warrantees, markets, and product profitability.

Every industry has some need for data mining. At the technical level, the building of data cubes lends itself to presenting information that is going to be statistically analyzed, based on collections of information from the ERP system. At the business level, which drives the technical level, information is analyzed to predict profitability, customer service, or safety.

In a retail environment, one can look at the sales of a product by date range, store, city, province, etc. It’s essentially a report. The data can be saved in a cube so that one does not have to rerun the report. Now, one would like to go further and examine the data associatively, or analytically. As examples, for anyone who bought Product X, what else did they buy? And (clustering) what else did similar shoppers buy? Call that the basket. Then the business can make recommendations (as does Amazon to its customers) based on the fact that other customers also bought products Y and Z.

ALEXANDER HANKEWICZ
In a more generalized view, data mining in ERP can be divided into several perspectives, including industry types, and compliance and regulatory issues. There are elements of data mining in ERP that encroach upon different knowledge bases.

Usage: Within the context of the end use of the captured data, there are broad implications in regards to ownership of data (i.e., public domain versus private domain) and subsequent legal and ethical considerations as to whether the data collected can be sold and redistributed to a third party.

Strategic business uses of data mining: As an end result of organizations implementing ERP systems and CRM, vast amounts of data were accumulated. The information collected required storage (data warehouses, data marts) and a method to retrieve, extract, and manipulate the data into a manageable form for the purposes of analytics. The end result was the creation of a field known as business intelligence. Through the use of BI, both public and private sector organizations could apply techniques (data mining) to identify trends, demographics, consumer preferences, and patterns, and to orient advertising of a product or service to the relevant population segment.

Some known uses of data mining are:

* fraud detection
* quality defect analysis
* supply chain management (SCM)
* focused hiring

These are just a few examples of data mining, yet there are other ways in which data mining applications can prove useful to organizations. The value that data mining and business intelligence represent to an organization is the ability to identify trends and shifts in demand patterns. This can help organizations reduce costs and benefit from increased sales revenue opportunities.

JEFF SPITZER
Here’s my take on data mining relating to health care compliance for electronic data. On April 14, 2006 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) took effect. HIPAA is a set of guidelines that US health care organizations must follow to the letter when dealing with electronic media such as electronic medical records, medical billing, and patient accounts. HIPAA ensures that these organizations protect the integrity of their patient data—which is the life line of the health care industry.

There are three levels of security that must be enforced at all times. They are

* administrative security - assignment of security responsibility to an individual
* physical security - required to protect electronic systems, equipment, and data
* technical security – relates to the authentication and encryption used to control access to data

(See http://www.hipaaguidance.com/hipaa-rules.htm for more information about HIPAA)

Since patients put their sole trust in the health care industry to keep their information confidential, the onus is on health care organizations to ensure that patient data is indeed secure; if a health care facility doesn’t follow HIPAA guidelines, it is compromising patient data and there could be substantial legal ramifications.

Data mining to review illnesses and effectiveness of treatments is providing discoveries into new medical treatments, and helping to eliminate ineffective ones.

DAVID BOURQUE
In regards to data mining for ERP, many firms are turning to what is known as manufacturing analytics. What this represents is a BI solution layer on top of traditional manufacturing technologies, enabling users to extract data from their manufacturing environment.

What does this mean exactly? Let’s say, for example, that a manufacturer produces cars and that it must procure car parts from multiple suppliers. If these components do not arrive on time, this will negatively affect their production runs, essentially decreasing the company’s bottom line.

By mining data in the ERP system, the manufacturer can

* distinguish which suppliers negate on delivering their components on time (and thus, in turn, decide to go with another supplier)
* decide if different manufacturing processes can be performed before the components arrive, so as not to waste time in the manufacturing environment

Data mining in an ERP environment can also help to lower costs within the financial section in the ERP, as well as help HR managers extract important information about employees in the organization. For example, if a particular skill is needed for a specific manufacturing task, the HR manager can quickly pull up this information and make an informed decision on where the employee’s skills would be best suited for that task.

SHERRY FOX
Over the past decade, the Internet has changed the way organizations do business. With the advent of the Internet, transactional data has reached enormous proportions. Let’s face it, data is perpetual. So the question is: how can businesses use their transactional data to their advantage?

Data mining (the process of retrieving information) is vital to understanding what’s going on within the business—how it’s doing financially, where problems lie, and where improvements can be made. As such, it’s important to be able to capture data in a secure and effective manner in order to make strategic business decisions.

The volumes of data that businesses deal with daily, the strict compliance regulations (e.g., SOX) they must adhere to, as well as the organizational operational policies imposed on them, are just a few of the things fuelling the need for data controls.

The newest trend in data mining is continuous controls monitoring (CCM). CCM’s powerful analytic capabilities enable organizations to gain immediate insight into the transactional data underlying their business and financial reporting processes.

Here is an example of where CCM is used:

A CCM interface to the inventory holdings in a distribution business is used to review potential stock-outs for thousands of stocked items. Using one specific case, the system recognized that according to projections, in 10 weeks that product would be out of stock, and since the lead time for replenishment is eight weeks, the CCM system output determined the optimal ordering method, the optimal quantity, and prepared a purchase order for a buyer to approve.

What makes CCM different? By continuously and independently analyzing financial transaction data, CCM applications can verify and validate the data against the organization’s control parameters and business rules. CCM benefits busy organizations by rapidly analyzing large volumes of data, identifying suspicious activities, and providing alerts should any breaches in security occur. This functionality enables users to detect the specific transaction responsible—before the problem worsens. It then automatically stores the data being analyzed—resulting in information that can be easily browsed and instantaneously retrieved.

MORE DATA MINING RESOURCES
TEC-certified software and services for data mining/business intelligence (BI):

Bitam - Bitam Artus
InetSoft Technology - InetSoft Suite
LogiXML - Logi 9 Business Intelligence Platform
Oracle - Hyperion System 9
Compare BI solutions side-by-side

Information Security 101: an Introduction to Being Compliant and Protecting Your Assets

E-mail, Internet access, and collaborative tools (whether a phone system’s conferencing capabilities, or document-sharing applications) are “must-haves” for most businesses today.

But by now many managers know that you shouldn’t stop at just implementing these tools and then going ahead, footloose and fancy-free, with using them. As with any other asset, you need to protect not just the technology that enables these tools and applications, but also the information that these tools allow users to share.
To ensure the confidentiality of private information—and help ensure compliance with regulations and internal policies—information security software is now also a “must have.”

A recent survey by Milford, Massachusetts (US)-based Enterprise Strategy Group revealed that the majority of organizations (59 percent of those that responded) do not even have a formal policy in place to define the sharing of data, particularly intellectual property.

What does this mean? Many companies “are flying by the seat of their pants and hoping not to get burned,” when it comes to data breaches, says Jon Oltsik, senior analyst with ESG.

But those who do get a little too close to the fire may find that not only the seats of their pants get scorched, but that they come close to losing the shirts off their backs too, as costly compliance violations add up. And never mind the costs that result from trying to stay on top of compliance by continually checking internal controls. And never mind the possibility of serving time in the slammer if the compliance violation is severe enough.

And, oh, never mind the damage that can be done to the reputation of your company in the face of public disclosure of your compliance violations.

It follows, then, that one of the first steps in boosting your security measures is to create a security and compliance policy. This internal policy should be a working document that clearly states your company’s security and data classification policies, (and that includes, depending on your industry or business activities, a functional definition of intellectual property).

Once that’s done, you need to make sure all employees know about those policies. One of the final steps to ensuring your assets are covered (think of it as flame-retardant for the seat of your pants) for data breach: install an up-to-date information security system that helps you enforce those policies and that helps maximize data protection.

In order to choose the right information security system, you’ll need to identify the ways that users may currently be allowing sensitive information beyond the confines of your organization. And with e-mail, Internet access, and other collaborative tools, the ways data can be leaked, manipulated, or lost are numerous.

And as for compliance—many organizations are still struggling to get their heads around the cumbersome (and potentially costly) US Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002.

Which Companies Need to Be Particularly Concerned with Data Security?

Companies in any manufacturing industry that need to ensure the confidentiality or secrecy of recipes or processes

· Companies in any industry known for innovation or thought leadership

· Enterprises in any industry needing to maintain records for auditing in accordance with SOX

· Hospitals and other health care facilities dealing with thousands of pieces of confidential patient data on a daily basis.

· Companies at the end of the supply chain, involved in accepting credit card payment by phone or Internet

How Can Information Security Specifically Address Your Data Confidentiality and Compliance Needs?

· Create levels of authorized access to vulnerable data, and ensure limited access with private passwords

· Establish secure communication channels between terminals or remote offices with electronic data interchange (EDI) and virtual private networks (VPNs)

· Mitigate the risk of both internal and external data breach with firewalls and data encryption methods

· Automatically analyze potential new threats to the system, and send alerts to the appropriate administrators

· Aid in compliance with SOX, and other regulations, such as the requirements created by the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Security Standards Council, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), or in Japan, the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law (J-SOX) and the Protection of Personal Information Law

· Capture, monitor, and keep financial file logs (from financial reporting systems) for at least one year, for SOX audits

Information Security Slip Ups—or Why Chains around Your Computer Hardware Won’t Keep Your Data Safe

* When hackers access the credit card numbers (or other confidential personal information) of your customers, it can cost you from $90 to $305 USD for each breached record. For US-based retail chain TJX, which let nearly 100 million credit card numbers get into the virtual sticky fingers of hackers, the damage has been dear indeed. (This may happen more often than you realize… bought jeans or a watch over the Internet lately? Lingerie? Books? How about a CD or DVD? In addition to the company cited above, the same or a similar issue has plagued Guess, Victoria’s Secret, Barnes & Noble, Tower Records, Eli Lilly, and even—gasp!—Microsoft, to name but a few. )
* Never underestimate the wrath of an employee spurned… a woman employed as an administrative assistant recently deleted $2.5 million (USD) (and seven years’) worth of architectural drawings to seek revenge (or would that be pre-venge?) on her employer, whom she believed was planning to fire her. The woman used her own account credentials to access the files, which it took her about four hours to delete. The files have since been restored. But clearly, this firm could have benefited from an information security package that would have ensured that the administrative assistance did not have authorization to access the files in question.
* The spouse of an employee at Pfizer performed an unauthorized installation of a peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol on a company laptop, which led to a flood of exposed employee data. In attempt to make amends, the company felt obliged to offer the more than 17,000 affected employees a years’ free credit monitoring, at a reported cost of $25,000 (USD). Again, had the company been aware of the potential risks of mobile devices such as laptops, and the need for not just passwords but security features that prevent the download of unauthorized programs or applications, this breach could have been prevented. Pfizer is probably thanking its lucky stars the damage wasn’t more costly, and that customer information was not part of the breach.

What an Information Security System Can Do to Tackle These Risks:

* Strengthen encryption methods, so that even remotely hosted private or confidential data cannot be (so easily) cracked
* Make sure that your information security solution can protect you against structured query language attacks, and that the vendor agrees to provide upgrades that will help protect you against new viruses, trojans, and malware.
* Limit or deny use of vendor-supplied password defaults, to minimize the possibility of password breaches
* With data forensic abilities, information security solutions can respond to threats and analyze events in order to better predict potential future security breaches

Want More Information about How to Find the Best Information Security Software for Your Needs?

* Visit Technology Evaluation Center’s (TEC’s) Information Security Evaluation Center to find out more benefits of implementing info security
* Find out about the ways firewall software can target your security needs
* Download sample request for proposal (RFP) templates for information security and firewall
* Read articles about information security by industry experts

Any comments, questions, or advice about Iiformation security? Let everybody know below.

“Act Vertical” vs. “Go Extinct” Retailers – Part 1

In over a decade of covering the enterprise application space, I’ve repeatedly lauded and advised vertical focus (i.e., someone’s proven expertise in some particular industry and market segment), but not that much vertical integration per se. My beliefs were recently confirmed by what I learned while pursuing my APICS CSCP (Certified Supply Chain Professional) title.

Namely, Module One of the APICS CSCP Learning System, entitled “Supply Chain Management Fundamentals” teaches that companies have generally pursued one of the following two types of supply chain management (SCM): either vertical or lateral (also known as horizontal) integration. Vertical (supply chain) integration refers to the practice of bringing the entire supply chain inside a single organization.

In fact, vertical integration, or the ownership of many or all the parts of a supply chain, has been around longer than the term “supply chain.” By bringing many supply chain activities in-house and putting them under centralized corporate management, vertical integration solves the problem of who will design, plan, execute, monitor, and control supply chain activities.

In other words, the primary benefit of vertical integration is control. For instance, a department or wholly owned subsidiary with no independent presence in the marketplace cannot make a deal with competitors (e.g., to sell its components or services at a higher price or faster). Divisional operations are completely visible to the parent company (at least in theory) and can be synchronized with other company functions by directives from the top. The overarching management controls the division’s schedules, workforce policies, locations, amounts produced, and all other aspects of its business.

The Way We Were

One often-cited example of vertical integration is the automobile company built by Henry Ford, who frequently receives mention as an especially successful avatar of this approach. In the early days of the automotive industry, Ford pursued a strategy of owning and controlling as many links in the automotive industry supply chain as possible, from rubber plantations to supply raw material for tires right on through the dealerships that distributed cars to the public. In an attempt to create a self-sufficient enterprise, Ford even owned iron ore mines, steel mills, and a fleet of ships as well as the manufacturing plants and showrooms that built and distributed the cars bearing his name (and, eventually, the brands of Lincoln town cars, Mercury, Mazda, and Volvo as well).

In the retail arena, vertical integration was pioneered by such retail brands as Gap Inc., The Limited (LTD), Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), and Talbots. These merchants wanted far more control over the products they placed on their shelves, racks, and bins. To gain this control, they moved “upstream” their supply chain into collaborative product development and, in some cases, even manufacturing.

This model actually fueled the ascent of Gap in the early 1980s, when its new CEO at the time, Millard “Mickey” S. Drexler (subsequently the chairman of J.Crew Group), made a major strategic shift. The decision was to move away from being a merchant of Levi’s jeans into a retailer that would sell only one brand of a broader line of products: its own. Over the next 20 years (1983 to 2003), Gap’s revenue soared more than 30-fold to nearly US$16 billion, before flattening out the last several years.

As a peek preview of what will come later in this blog series, retailers that have embraced a modified vertical business model are racing ahead of competitors that have not, or those that are moving slowly to become more vertical (of sort). In fact, the spoils of acting vertical have attracted wholesalers and manufacturers.

Consider the wholesaler VF Corporation, which began in 1899 as a Pennsylvania clothing manufacturer. Now a US$6.2 billion company, VF opened its first retail outlets in 1970 as a way to dispose of discontinued lines. Nearly 20 percent of VF’s revenue today is from retailing, a percentage that could increase if the firm’s plans to add new stores to its base of more than 500 are carried through.

Apple Computer Inc. has moved to act vertically as well, jumping into the retailing business in 2001. Today the retail part of Apple’s business is substantial: over US$4 billion, or 17 percent of the company’s total revenue. But we will revisit these two (and several more) buoyant retailers later.

Vertical Integration Going Passé

While some form of vertical integration still persists in some companies (e.g., wireless phone companies may still purchase [although not manufacture] the phones, stock them at retail outlets, sell them, provide coverage, and handle warranty service), this business model has generally gone out of fashion as corporations became vaster in scale and global supply chains became quite a bit longer. It is indeed difficult for one corporation to garner the expertise needed to excel in all elements of the supply chain.

Thus, corporations in West Europe and North America, especially, have turned instead to outsourcing those aspects of their business in which they judge themselves to be least effective and competent. The complexity and expense of managing all those diverse activities drives top management to sell off assets not directly contributing to the core business. Japanese companies, on the other hand, favor an intermediate form of integration called “keiretsu,” in which suppliers and customers are not completely independent but instead own significant stakes in one another.

Lateral supply chain integration has replaced vertical integration as the favored approach to managing the myriad activities in the contemporary supply chain. The lateral (horizontal) integration is presumed in most supply chain operations, and horizontal chains are now the way of the world and, therefore, the major focus of supply chain theory and practice.

The “Big Three” (currently languishing) United States (US) auto companies (which now own significant stakes in, or are owned by, foreign automakers) have all divested themselves of their in-house component suppliers. Ford Motor Company was no exception to this trend since it underwent a radical transformation of its supply chain at the turn of the 21st century. Like the other two major fellow “Motown” automakers, Ford divested itself of the production of many components, as Chrysler spun off its Mopar (short for MOtor PARts) division and General Motors (GM) turned its component supplier loose to become Delphi Corporation.

Hence, it appears that the days of being totally self-sufficient and capable in today’s world of high technology and virtual engineering and manufacturing are over. Rather than bringing all the functions inside the walls of one corporation, large manufacturers and service providers are now more likely to adopt a lateral supply chain strategy.

In a lateral supply chain constellation, separately owned firms focus on core competencies such as extraction, harvesting, production, or distribution, and deal with each other through discrete transactions or longer-term contracts. Among the reasons for relying on a lateral supply chain, the following three stand out:

1. To achieve economies of scale and economies of scope – No matter how large the corporation, its internal supply chain functions lack economies of scale when compared with the potential capacity and acumen of an independent provider of the same product or service.
2. To improve business focus and expertise — Vertical integration, in a globally competitive market, multiplies the complexity of managing disparate businesses spread across international borders, time zones, and oceans. An independent company that focuses entirely on its particular business can develop more expertise than an in-house department, leading to more attractive pricing, higher quality, or both. Both the spun off (outsourced) function and the parent firm benefit from a cleaner focus on what they do best after they part company.
3. Because it is possible today — With the advent of advanced, nearly instantaneous communication technology (i.e., whereby information can be shared simultaneously by videoconference or in chat rooms around the globe), many of the traditional barriers to doing business at a distance have been falling away. As the entire globe becomes a virtual marketplace, it makes sense to deal with already established companies that know their local markets.

In addition to many possible outsourcing examples in China or India, a lesser known fact is that many apparel companies in Europe work through Dutch logistics centers to take advantage of Holland’s central location. Therefore, a number of specialized firms have sprung up there with well-developed capabilities in handling both the distribution and return of clothing.

Lateral Supply Chains: Not without Challenges

Despite the outlined potential attractions of the lateral chain, however, the fact remains that synchronizing the activities of a network of independent firms can be enormously challenging. Once corporate ownership abandons the idea of vertical integration and turns instead to outsourcing various activities, it loses control of those aspects in the multi-tiered supply chain. This loss of control is because the company now has to deal with separately owned independent companies as suppliers or customers.

What each supply chain member gains in scale, scope, and focus, it may lose in ability to see and understand the larger supply chain processes or care about them. It is not easy to capture the complexity of a global supply network with multiple connections around the world and information shared on sprawling networks connected all along the chain.

The abovementioned benefit of economy of scale and scope assumes, of course, that the independent provider supplies all of the needs of the original corporation and other customers as well. In that case, the supplier is most likely dealing directly with companies that compete with one another for the same business. The gain in scale may thus come at a price in confidentiality (although lack of confidentiality cuts both ways).

So, What’s the Point Here?

Attending the National Retail Federation (NRF) Annual Convention & EXPO 2009 (also known as the Retail Big Show) in January in New York City has helped me realize how some innovative retailers have modified the abovementioned evolutionary trend toward more outsourcing and the building of electronically linked virtual enterprises. The event was a bit of a surprise for me due to its (unexpectedly) upbeat vibe and decent attendance (although smaller than previous years). After so much negative news from national and cable TV channels at the time, following on the dismal past holiday season, I expected a much more somber mood indeed.

Believe it or not, this economy has actually made retailers (rather than consumers) spend, which may seem counterintuitive for most people except for informed SCM professionals. Upbeat recent results of leading Retail SCM applications providers like JDA Software might indicate that retailers are buying software these days in spite of the economic downturn (and given that they were not that crazy about packaged software even during better days).

Compared to all of a retailer’s current IT investments, these companies are only moving forward with investments that offer a direct payback. There has been investing in SCM applications that have a defined return on investment (ROI) that is attractive to retailers, who now need to be hyperefficient.

According to Kurt Salmon Associates (KSA), the leading global management consulting firm specializing in the retail and consumer goods industries, the historic relationship between retailers and their customers has changed dramatically over the past decade. The mounting disappearance of many retail stores and whole chains testifies to the fact that a growing number of retailers have failed to respond to a new set of customer expectations and growing competition for share of wallet (SoW).

The shakeout began long before the current economic downturn, and it will most likely extend long after the economy rebounds. The number of retail bankruptcies and mergers began accelerating in 2002, long before the latest recession started. In particular, the sad state of the retail sector’s affairs in 2007 was illustrated by about 1,500 mergers and 300 retail bankruptcies in the US, according to Capital IQ’s bankruptcy database of retailers, including Internet retailers.

Moreover, for 225 publicly held US retailers between 1998 and 2007, 60 percent could only generate single-digit annual earnings growth, while 15 percent had declines in annual earnings growth. Hence, over the last 10 years, the number of department store chains has shrunken from 27 to 7.

Stores have been especially vulnerable given an excess of retail space in the US (up 31 percent per capita over the last 25 years in the 54 biggest markets) and diminishing growth in sales per square foot at many retailers, even at seemingly recession-proof Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Despite the first annual drop in 20 years in occupied retail space, the retail construction boom this decade has left the US with too many stores competing for the same customers.

The bad news goes on and on, with with well-known brands such as KB Toys, Linens ‘N Things, Circuit City, and Ritz Camera being the latest casualties. Namely, in addition to globalization implications, retailers and their trading partners have to combat price pressures from competitor bankruptcies and deal with so much potential excess inventory.

KSA’s research finds that US apparel retailers alone lose $64 billion annually on markdowns, and some of them spend even a half of their planning resources on managing markdowns. Moreover, retailers have to diligently assess the financial health of trading partners (to ensure equitable trading), deal with current tight credit policies and (un)availability, and properly use economic indicators (including consumer spending behavior) as key factors in planning and forecasting.

Driving the abovementioned gloomy stats is the fact that customers have many more places to buy the same products. Indeed, there is an overabundance of “brick and mortar” retailers selling the same items from the same brands. On top of that, there is a proliferation of online retailers, and online auction sites that have made a large and growing market for used goods disposition.

As a result, the traditional retailing model of being just a purveyor of national product brands (and their knockoffs) is failing to inspire the customer to purchase, at least repeatedly. Customers demand much more of the retailers they choose to deal with in terms of products and brands they can’t get anywhere else.

Consumers also value their ability to shape those products to meet their needs, and much different ways of interacting with the retailer, i.e., the customer’s retail experience. Retailers (possibly even the discounters and stores that compete merely on price and convenience) that ignore these trend shifts risk sliding into irrelevance with obsolete business models.

No Doom-and-Gloom for “Act Vertical” Retailers

But this state of retailers’ despondency is not necessarily across-the-board. One of the most enlightening presentations at the NRF event was by KSA, and can be downloaded here. In March 2008, KSA launched research that used quantitative and qualitative methods to deeply explore the trend of vertical integration in retailing.

On the quantitative side, KSA conducted an extensive 28-question survey with 101 retailers (all of which had more than $500 million in annual revenue). On the qualitative side, the firm conducted in-depth case studies on 10 retailers, mostly through on-site and phone interviews with a range of executives at each retailer. A couple of case studies came from extensive literature searches and retail executives’ discussions with KSA subject-matter experts.

In a nutshell, over the last decade consumers have increasingly embraced an eclectic group of retailers that have become sort of vertically integrated. Even during these tough times, such retailers can boast with an operating margin of over 20 percent, and KSA ascertains the market opportunity of US$ 2 billion annually. This select group of retailers have significantly outperformed the market on a number of key performance indicators (KPI’s) as follows: revenue growth, operating profit margins, gross margins, same-store sales, sell-through rates, inventory turns, and inventory return on assets (ROA), among others.

The subsequent parts of this blog series will examine a number of retailers that have recognized this paradigm shift. They have developed a new operating model to differentiate themselves and deliver much greater value to their customers and shareholders. This operating model has been used by a small number of retailers including PetSmart Inc., Aéropostale Inc., Coach Inc., Trader Joe’s, Target, and Apple. Each company has grown rapidly despite the shakeout of retailers in its segments.

KSA refers to this operating model “acting vertical” for two reasons. First, these retailers have realized the need to become serious product innovators and not just merchants and peddlers. Accordingly, they collaborate on the front-end (upstream) of the supply chain with their customers to design and develop a number of compelling products with their brands on them (or national brand exclusives in some cases) for everything they sell.

However, they are not manufacturing these products, as is the case with true vertical integration. On the back-end (upstream) of the supply chain, they are working in a highly collaborative fashion with a smaller number of certified manufacturers. These retailers have control over quality without necessarily owning manufacturing, and hence the “acting vertical” moniker.

“Act Vertical” vs. “Go Extinct” Retailers – Part 2

Part 1 of this blog series set the historical background for the supply chain management (SCM) evolution and presented the advantages and shortcomings of vertical vs. horizontal integration. The analysis then moved onto the generally embattled retail sector, where a select group of innovative retailers has found a “happy medium” approach to stay well above the fray. Retailers such as PetSmart Inc., Aéropostale Inc., Coach Inc., Trader Joe’s, Walgreens, and Target have realized the need to become serious product innovators and not just merchants of national product brands or sellers of their own knockoffs.

Kurt Salmon Associated (KSA), the leading global management consulting firm specializing in the retail and consumer goods industries, dubbed this strategy “Act Vertical” in its seminal research study. The firm presented the highlights of the study at the National Retail Federation (NRF) Annual Convention & EXPO 2009 (also known as the “Retail Big Show“) in January 2009 in New York City. The accompanying slide deck can be downloaded here.

The gist of the matter is that these avant-garde merchants no longer see the division of labor between suppliers and retailers as the customary one of “they invent and make it, and we sell it.” In fact, the retailers control (without owning per se) every piece of the value chain, from creating new product concepts to getting finished goods into the hands of consumers.

The retailer is thus in charge of processes such as “design & develop,” “source,” “plan & manage,” “move,” “sell,” and “buy & flow.” As a result, these companies are able to more quickly discern emerging consumer trends. They are also better at creating products to meet those needs and are critically faster at bringing the resulting “hot” and “cool” products to market.

In contrast to “acting vertical” (i.e., controling the components of the product development and supply chain operations required to create products without necessarily owning them), “being vertical” means owning all the supply chain nodes, a strategy that hardly anyone recommends or pursues today (as mentioned in Part 1). The downside of owning such assets is getting locked into high costs and capital investments, with potentially inflexible capacity. Even many consumer goods manufacturers have been increasingly shedding their plants.

Acting vertical, on the other hand, does not require retailers to own inflexible and costly manufacturing and other supply chain assets
—yet it enables them to operate as though they do. This advantage comes in part from striking strong and mutually beneficial working relationships with approved and certified supplying manufacturers.

In addition to the retailers mentioned earlier, other retailers that act vertical include Abercrombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, H&M, Macy’s, and VF Corporation (a branded lifestyle apparel manufacturer that also turned into a retailer). They have all increased their private-label business significantly, working more closely with manufacturers to create products expressly and exclusively for their supply chains.

The Drivers for “Acting Vertical”

While the practice of “acting vertical” has been in place for many years (e.g., Gap Inc., The Limited [LTD], and Talbots adopted vertical business models 40 years ago, as described in Part 1), it has accelerated over the last decade. Why? From KSA’s consulting experience, the following five factors are the cause:

1) The consolidation of retail brands
— As said in Part 1, over the last 10 years the number of department store chains has shrunken more than threefold. The survivors wield greater clout over suppliers to create distinct products for their stores and expand their private-label business. To try to differentiate their products and customer experiences, many retailers have been selling a larger number of private-label or exclusively distributed items, as well as providing more store and Web site information on what they sell.

Private-label sales in grocery stores in the US are now about 18 percent of total revenue, and growing nearly 10 percent annually, according to the Nielsen Company’s research. Drug stores generate 13 percent of revenue from private labels, and that number is growing 15 percent a year. And although private labels account for only 1.5 percent of convenience-store sales, this business has still been climbing 18 percent annually.

However, these retailers have had mixed success in their private label forays. About one third of retailers KSA surveyed generated the majority of their revenue from products unique to their chains. By 2013, 41 percent plan to generate the majority of revenue from their own products. However, only a minority (43 percent) said they had been highly or very highly effective at getting customers to embrace and purchase products that were unique to their chains.

And less than one third said they were highly or very highly effective at helping store customers secure the right products. Even fewer (20 percent) said their websites were highly effective at this game. An earlier TEC article sheds more light on the promise and complexities of dealing with private labels.

2) The proliferation of product brands
— While the number of retail brands (at least in general merchandise stores) is diminishing, the number of product brands has mushroomed. For example, consider the sevenfold increase in the number of branded jeans over the last 20 years, from 8 to 57 (not including another 940 niche jeans brands).

This is the case in many retail product categories, and as a result consumers have many more choices and much less loyalty to any one of them. They are much less willing to pay more for brand names. In fact, according to the US Department of Labor (DoL) and MBG Information Services, apparel pricing over the last 10 years has declined when adjusted for inflation.

Finally, consumers are much less forgiving of retailers that have popular items that are out of stock. For more information, see TEC’s article entitled “Yes, We Have No Bananas: Consumer Goods Manufacturers Serve Demanding Customers.”

3) The emergence of Internet-based retailing and the channel conflicts it has created
— These online trends have also increased the need for merchants to focus on their own (private-label) products. Many wholesalers are not willing to let retailers sell their products on the retailers’ Web sites because it can create conflicts with competing retailers about who should be allowed to sell the products in a given territory. Avoiding such conflicts encourages retailers to instead create product offerings that no other retailer can sell.

4) The need to accelerate time-to-market of both new and existing products
— Hitting ever-smaller fashion windows has also become critical, since speed is of the essence here (i.e., from the time a consumer need is identified to the time a product hits the stores’ shelves). That, in turn, requires much greater coordination and control over each piece of the product development and supply chain. For more information, see TEC’s article “Zooming into the Clothing Retailer Conundrum.”

5) Finally, investor expectations of publicly held retailers are intense
— There is an enormous pressure from investors and Wall Street for year-over-year improvement of financial results. One of the best ways to boost profitability is through differentiated products: the gross margins from selling a private-label product are reportedly 10 to 15 points higher than they are on a wholesale brand.

Furthermore, Wall Street rewards retailers that balance growth and profitability, and penalizes those that increase the top line at the expense of the bottom line. The Act Vertical business model can help retailers achieve that coveted balance.

How to Act Vertical, then?

The five factors outlined above force retailers to create much stronger product offerings and keep them in stock accordingly. In turn, this capability requires more control over the ideation, design, manufacture, and distribution of those offerings, which is what the “Act Vertical” model is all about.

To put all this into perspective, retailers have traditionally competed either on customer experience or product uniqueness. Strategies have ranged from the extreme of competing on price (or convenience) via ubiquitous products (where the customer experience is a mere transaction) to the other extreme of differentiating on a breakthrough offering that engages customers’ lifestyle experience.

The Act Vertical territory encompasses the ability to compete on both a distinct, compelling offering and on superior customer experience. But acting vertical has to entail the following three capabilities, starting with product conception:

1) Working With Consumers to Co-create Demand

A successful Act Vertical business model begins with creating products that delight consumers. These products are developed by conducting extensive research with consumers. The evidence shows that many retailers suffer from an excess of poor product decisions, and the excessive use of markdowns is one sign.

KSA’s research finds that US apparel retailers alone lose US$64 billion annually on markdowns. Some of them spend half of their planning resources on managing markdowns. Yet, markdowns are not the only sign of poor product decisions. In the apparel industry, retailers shift 5 percent of their excess product to the off-price channel, which has become a $10 billion industry.

Shorter selling seasons and cycle times are making this situation even worse, since retailers have much less time to make good assortment decisions. The Act Vertical model calls for retailers to get consumers more involved in key product decisions (i.e., more extensive testing of new products, colors, and patterns before retailers make commitments to suppliers, as well as more frequent testing of the entire consumer experience).

Getting consumers involved in co-creating demand means collecting data not only beforehand (in the early idea phase), but throughout the entire life of the consumer. This means taking input from every consumer interaction (in the store, online, via the catalog, etc.) and analyzing and acting on it. Retailers that do this well gain a deeper understanding of how their products fit within consumers’ lifestyles and belief systems.

Catalog retailers have done this for years, and now more bricks-and-mortar retailers such as American Eagle Outfitters and Payless ShoeSource are doing it too. Yet, in spite of the findings of the previous TEC article entitled “Consumers Shop Everywhere: Understanding Multichannel Sales,” most retailers still have, at best, only one point of contact with consumers during product design and development.

Brick-and-mortar retailers are also accelerating their consumer research and product development processes. Some have drastically reduced their concept-to-market process duration, e.g., from 10 months to 10 weeks. Such product “fast tracking” has become a key advantage, and leading retailers are managing 40 to 60 percent of their assortments with only 10 to 20 weeks allowed for the “from concept to shelf” cycle time.

Still, speed isn’t all that matters in Act Vertical retailing. Without proper research, many retailers simply get more of the wrong products to their stores, albeit faster. Retailers leveraging the Act Vertical model also gather more extensive consumer feedback on their products. Some use their stores as laboratories to test products.

They often bring merchandising and product design personnel in to hear consumers’ input directly. These retailers limit merchandising managers from relying on personal preferences and historical data. They let the science of retail count as much as the art. In other words, they do not let merchants “fall in love” with products or base their decisions on a hunch (i.e., what they thought looked great and what they needed to fill the slots in their catalog).

With more consumer input to use in product buying decisions, “vertically acting” retailers can begin to see easy-to-overlook nuances of different consumer segments. This is critical because most consumer segmentations use broad demographic and psychographic categories.

Leading retailers use focus groups, web-based consumer panels, product surveys, social networking Web sites such as MySpace or Facebook, and other means to ferret out fine-grained differences in consumer attitudes, emotions, lifestyles, behaviors, aspirations, and self-perceptions. As an idea, see TEC’s earlier article/podcast entitled “Social Networks: How They’re Turning CRM Upside Down.”

The above initiatives enable retailers to create finer-grained “micro segments” of consumers (e.g., “affluent moms in their 30s in Boston” rather than “affluent women from 20 to 35 nation-wide”). With much smaller and sharper focused consumer segments, these retailers can create much more appropriate products, assortments, and marketing campaigns.

Because consumer tastes change quickly today, Act Vertical retailers conduct consumer research and segmentation more frequently as well. While most retailers do such research and segmentation every two to three years, Act Vertical retailers do it every season. This frequency is part of their product development and merchandising processes.

In addition, these retailers ensure that their employees have the same mental image of their chain’s target consumer. In these companies, the merchant’s role shifts from picking products to managing projects (i.e., executing the plans that define how the retailer will meet the needs of each major consumer segment). With shortened cycle times, many assortment planning processes must be executed in parallel and much closer to the selling season (to meet the latest consumer needs).

Leading retailers now make assortment decisions 20 weeks out from in-store delivery (rather than 30 weeks in the past), and with much greater amounts of consumer information. They rank styles and items based on consumer-generated “confidence levels,” with the result being major increases in comp-store sales and margins.

Personal Example

I, personally, can go on and on (as an unpaid passionate advocate) about my experiences in the local Trader Joe’s grocery store. Namely, I have caught myself finding excuses to go to the store many times a week, in anticipation of the food and wine testing and cooking suggestions (combination of the in-store items) I might experience that day. Often I end up buying many items I had no intention of buying before I entered the store.

The company’s offering is indeed unique, not exactly pretentiously overpriced organic stuff (a la Whole Foods Market) but with many organic or close-to-organic (e.g., natural) products. The store’s choice of reasonably priced private label items (in addition to the “three buck Chuck” wines from the Charles Shaw brand) in the frozen food or dairy sections cannot really be found elsewhere.

The same goes for many domestic and imported beers or seasonal items like pumpkin butter. Not to mention the imported cheeses from Europe, lamb from New Zealand, and so on. The store staff is receptive to any suggestions, flexible in reacting to relieving long lines at cashiers (on demand), and on several occasions I did not need a receipt to either replace a defective item or to be reimbursed on the spot.

2) Delivering a Consistent and Immersive Consumer Experience

With more appropriate products to offer, Act Vertical retailers are far more likely to dazzle consumers who visit their stores. Still, great products isn’t the only thing that differentiates these retailers. Their store experience is also superior, and this immersive experience (not only in the store, but also online and via other channels) means how well consumers can test products before purchase, maximize their use after purchase, and fulfill other needs directly and indirectly related to the products.

PetSmart, for example, has opened up hotels for pets and runs dog obedience classes in its stores. Both value-add services create tighter bonds with the consumers that typically come to shop for their pets’ food. The regional grocery supermarket store chain Wegmans lavishes attention and services on its consumers, providing everything from recipes to catering services.

Since 2006, Best Buy has been offering customized “store-within-a-store” experiences and services at selected locations for small business owners and home theater enthusiasts. At these Best Buy For Business locations, trained specialists provide business solutions and services to businesses with up to 20 employees. To meet the expectations of convenient, personal service from specialized advisors, and technical support whenever and wherever they need it, Best Buy For Business offers a broader selection of technology products, such as servers and professional notebooks, professional advice and 24/7 IT support via the Geek Squad service.

These services generate much higher product sales because they help customers satisfy their larger emotional needs, lifestyle demands and aspirations. Such services also enable a retailer to gain a much richer understanding of its customers’ needs–insights it can use to continually create new and compelling products and services.

These retailers ensure that consumers can go to the store for everything they will need to use the product (i.e., one-stop shopping). Apple’s stores are great at this. At the Genius Bar in-store spot, a team of specialists instructs consumers on a variety of topics without pressuring them to buy.

Consumers who need one-on-one advice on how to operate Apple’s devices can pay $99 a year for appointment-based training (under the “No pain, all gain” slogan), from basic advice on how to set up a Mac personal computer (PC) or iPhone to editing digital videos and running graphic design software. Again on the personal note, my 20-month-old daughter, whose attention span can be measured in milliseconds, spends umpteen minutes (punching the keyboard and chasing the mouse) at the local Apple store’s video games spot for children.

Such services have helped make Apple a huge retailing success. Apple’s retail revenue has nearly doubled in the last two years. With about 200 stores to date, Apple generates an average $23 million a store, according to the company’s 2007 annual report. Revenue per square foot (about $2,500) was two-and-one-half times greater than Best Buy’s, according to a New York Times article in 2006.

These retailers also make sure that their store employees are as passionate about the company’s products as their consumers are–not just more knowledgeable. For example, outdoor gear retailer Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI) hires associates who love the outdoors. When the consumer looks for the right sleeping bag or tent at REI, store employees can speak from personal experience about what he/she will need.

By hiring employees who share consumers’ product passions, retailers that act vertical use their stores to create strong relationships. They ensure their salespeople are part of the consumer’s “community” of others with similar interests. Apple uses its retail stores to encourage consumers to bond with other consumers by hosting social events like the “Midnight Mix” concerts, where the hottest local DJ’s play songs from midnight to 2 a.m. As another example, Best Buy For Business encourages networking among local small business professionals in exclusive events with business leaders, local professional organizations, and the US Small Business Administration (SBA).

By providing compelling products and services through engaging customer experiences, the best act vertical retailers create a virtuous circle that continually strengthens their bonds with their customers. They have converted their casual customers into passionate advocates–people who not only like shopping at those retailers but also enjoy congregating with one another in and outside the stores. In this way, these savvy retailers have created a “tribe” of people with common passions, values, and aspirations.

3) Tailoring Supply Chains

After improving the way they interact with consumers both before and during their store visits, act vertical retailers have quite different ways of interacting on the back end of their business as well. They might even create more than one supply chain to accommodate different types of products. In other words, they tailor and fine tune their supply chains as required.

The final part of this blog series will conclude with how these retailers handle (with care) their “act vertical” supply chains. To my mind, this flexibility and agility of supply chains and using different supply approaches to meet the distinct needs of different products is where the “Act Vertical rubber hits the road.”

Till then, what are your thoughts and comments in this regard? What are your experiences in dealing with the abovementioned retailers? What software applications do you think can help these companies in their “Act Vertical” efforts?