Análisis general 43

Cross-group analysis examined how stores from the three groups managed OOS and OS occurrences in their stores. Findings revealed that the way GSOPs and SSOPs were implemented could result in different extents of OOS and OS occurrences.

Table 5-3 lists the main factors that contributed to OOS and OS occurrences in stores under the three groups. The table also lists the various approaches undertaken by store managers in the three groups to manage factors contributing to OOS and OS occurrences.

Most factors were staff-related, such as competence levels, diligence and trainability. While the culture of FS stores embraced the importance of relationships and positive re- enforcement strategies, such as encouragement and rewards, mistakes remained due to staff lacking due diligence.

174 Store managers of low-OOS stores adopted strict approaches towards staff who had demonstrated lack of diligence, such as verbal warnings, re-training and customised or personalised re-training when necessary. For example, an employee working at the checkout station had a poor command of the English language and therefore failed to improve her skills from re-training sessions conducted in English. Her store manager realised the problem and personally re-trained her on PoS specifications in Mandarin. Store managers in medium- and high-OOS and OS occurrence groups tended to adopt a more staff-friendly approach by counselling and encouraging staff to be more careful and attentive.

Though a lack of staff diligence was partly to be blamed, inaccurate product scans at the receiving stage and checkout stations were also unavoidable realities, due to the practical limitations faced by stores, such as lack of supervisory personnel to oversee the checkout stations. In many instances, errors were only detected when regular systems’ updates produced discrepancies in reports, especially during inventory reconciliations. Error occurrences increased when several deliveries arrived at the same time and when the stores experienced peak patronage, such as weekends or before festive holidays.

Managers of low-OOS stores adopted proactive strategies to deal with this recurring issue, such as putting more staff at checkout stations during peak periods and stationing themselves near checkout stations to enable quick conflict resolution and avoid or minimise congestion. Some store managers examined the situation when mistakes occurred and instead of penalising the staff, encouraged and counselled.

175 Table 5-3 Key differences in OOS and OS management towards factors contributing to OOS

and OS

Factors Contributing to OOS & OS Low-OOS Stores Medium-OOS

Stores High-OOS Stores

Number of factors 18 15 13

Attitude towards poor staff performance, especially staff with different levels of user competence of store systems VW, CR, R, D Varied between E & T amongst stores. T followed by E

Attitude towards information accuracy at checkout stations

Pro towards quick resolution to prevent & ease

congestion.

E T followed by E

Under-scans at checkout stations due to staff’s different levels of user competence of PoS system

VW, CR, R, D E T followed by E Error scans at checkout stations due to

packaging designs VW E T followed by E

Error, over- and under-scans at receiving station

Varied between VW & E amongst

stores.

E E

Attitude towards inventory shrinkage P & ED P P Attitude towards information inaccuracy

at receiving station due to staff’s varied levels of PDA system competence

VW, CR but stores with mobile receiving stations

will be varied between Pro & E.

E E

Relationship with headquarters PC to resolve issues. Varied between PC & T amongst stores. Varied between PC & E. Attitude towards information accuracy

with headquarters PC to ensure records is updated on time. SE to remind records was updated on time. SE to remind records was updated on time. Error deliveries by headquarters –

wrong quantity and product

Immediate PC to ESDD. If serious, ad-hoc delivery to be arranged. SE & FDD@HQ. RNSD SE & FDD@HQ. RNSD

Error deliveries by suppliers – wrong quantity and product

Varied between VW & PC amongst stores. ESDD if possible. Varied from VW, E & PC amongst stores. RNSD if possible. WWNSD if necessary. Varied from VW to PC. RNSD if possible. WWNSD if necessary.

Attitude towards information accuracy with suppliers PC to ensure records is updated on time. Varied from PC and/or FSDR@S PC and/or SE to ensure records are updated on time. NOTE:

VW = Verbal Warning CR = Customised Re-training PC = Personal Calls E = Encouragement T = Tolerance Pro = Proactive RT = Early Retrain D = Dismissal P = Prevention ED = Early Detection

ESDD = Expect same day delivery RNSD = Request next schedule delivery SE = Send email FSDR@S = Feedback to suppliers’ driver and representative at store

176 Store managers of medium- and high-OOS tolerated mistakes (because they understood the constraints faced by affected staff) or encouraged and counselled staff on the importance of how individual performance could affect the overall team performance of the store. Although these store managers appeared to have adopted a sympathetic style of management, they did not appear to have effectively curbed frequency of errors committed, as evident in the higher extent of OOS and OS occurrences they experienced compared to those of the low- OOS group.

Mistakes made due to inaccurate scans at receiving stations caused inaccurate inventory information in the stores’ systems. Staff at receiving stations would record the error manually (on a piece of paper), with the intention to update the system while they waited for the next delivery. But it was common for staff to forget to follow up the task. In some instances, records were updated only after the next round of inventory ordering had occurred, and this delay caused OS in affected products. Store managers from low-OOS stores enforced strict management towards such incidences via verbal warnings or strong words of encouragement towards performance improvement. Store managers from medium- and high-OOS stores, on the other hand, tended to counsel and encourage staff to be more attentive and to seek help when needed.

Store managers of the three groups also exercised different levels of effort in order to manage relationships with HQ. Store managers of low-OOS stores would make regular personal calls to engage with HQ and to resolve conflicts. This approach was proven effective as problems tended to be resolved almost immediately. This finding corroborates with that of Fernie and Corcoran (2010), who found that lack of formal communication and inadequate training from HQ to store staff have a direct impact on OSA in stores. One store manager (N-3-A) from a medium-OOS store used personal calls to resolve conflicts, while other store managers in the same group tolerated mistakes made by HQ in the hope that HQ would in turn tolerate mistakes made by them. Four store managers from high-OOS stores

177 always made personal calls, whereas other store managers in the same group sent informal emails to specific staff at HQ to resolve conflicts. An important observation was the issue relating to ‘who to call’ at HQ office to report problems and achieve a quick resolution. Store managers from low-OOS group revealed that they’ve identified specific HQ staff that had the ability to resolve problems efficiently and effectively.

Incorrect deliveries from HQ were normally not tolerated by store managers in the low-OOS group. These managers noted that whenever mistakes occurred during order picking at HQ warehouse, their in-store operations would be affected, making it difficult to maintain OSA of products. Most of the low-OOS stores expected same-day re-delivery from HQ to rectify the mistake and would even issue strong requests for ad-hoc deliveries, especially if the affected stock was a high-turnover item. Store managers from medium- and high-OOS and OS groups, however, only emailed HQ about delivery errors and requested the corrected stock or corrected quantity of stock be delivered in the next scheduled delivery.

Similarly, store managers from low-OOS stores did not tolerate incorrect deliveries from suppliers. Verbal warnings of poor delivery performance were normally issued by store managers, followed by personal calls to suppliers’ main office to demand correct deliveries be completed on the same day. Store managers from medium-OOS stores adopted different strategies to manage incorrect deliveries from suppliers. These strategies adopted included making personal calls to suppliers’ main office, reminding suppliers of the consequences of incorrect deliveries and requesting a concerted effort from suppliers to ensure accuracy in the next scheduled delivery. However, most store managers from this group tolerated short lengths of OOS and waited for the next day’s scheduled delivery. Four store managers from high-OOS stores made personal calls to the suppliers’ main office and requested the next scheduled delivery. They also tolerated a short length of OOS and waited for the next day’s scheduled delivery.

178 Accurate suppliers’ inventory information was treated as an important issue by all store managers, and personal calls to suppliers’ main office to ensure accuracy of information relating to inventory levels, forecasting and product performance were maintained. This practice reinforces what has also been observed in previous studies (e.g. Grant and Fernie 2008; Ettouzani et al 2012): lack of collaboration and unreliable performance (e.g. irregular system updates) from suppliers affected quality of deliveries and stores’ ability to maintain OSA of products.

Discussion of Key Findings