Supply Chain Management

Fixing Agriculture’s Core Issue: Market Linkage and Policy Bias!! Farmers feed the world, yet many struggle to access markets that fairly value their produce. This market linkage gap, combined with policies prioritizing cheap food for consumers, traps farmers in poverty, threatens food security, and stifles agricultural progress. With smallholders producing 70% of global food, solving this is urgent. Why It Matters Poor market access costs farmers billions—40% of produce in sub-Saharan Africa alone rots before reaching buyers. Meanwhile, policies like price caps and subsidies keep basic commodities like grains and rice affordable for consumers but depress farmgate prices, penalizing farmers. This dual challenge demands bold solutions. Key Barriers Weak Infrastructure: Poor roads and storage cause massive post-harvest losses. Information Gaps: Farmers lack real-time market data, leaving them vulnerable to exploitative value chains. Limited Networks: Smallholders miss out on large markets due to scale and connections. Financial Constraints: No credit means no investment in quality or technology. Policy Bias: Price controls and consumer-focused subsidies undervalue farmers’ work, as seen in systems like India’s MSP, which often favor select crops. Solutions That Work Tech Platforms: Apps today connect farmers to buyers, boosting incomes by 30%. Better Infrastructure: Public-private investments in roads and cold chains cut losses. Cooperatives: Models like Kenya’s Tea Agency show collective bargaining unlocks global markets. Value Addition: Training in processing or certifications opens premium markets. Fair Policies: Shift from price controls to income support and market diversification to balance consumer needs with farmer livelihoods. The Way Forward Low consumer prices shouldn’t come at farmers’ expense. Bridging market gaps and reforming biased policies can slash waste, boost incomes, and ensure resilient food systems. The impact—thriving farmers, stronger economies, and sustainable agriculture—is worth fighting for. Join the Conversation What’s working in your region to improve market access or fix policy imbalances? Share your ideas below—let’s build a fairer future for agriculture.

Africa’s food travels, on average, 4,000 kilometers over 23 days before reaching consumers. That’s almost four times longer than in #Europe, where the same food journey takes about 6 days. And the question is—why does a continent that holds 60% of the world’s uncultivated arable land still move its food so slowly? The answers are not hidden in theory but in the ground reality. Roads that are unfinished or poorly maintained mean trucks spend hours navigating potholes that should have been repaired decades ago. Border posts that require half a dozen stamps keep drivers waiting for days. Ports that process goods at half the global average efficiency become choke points instead of gateways. In logistics, time is money—but in #Africa, time is often bureaucracy. Take #Kenya & #Uganda for example. A truck carrying maize from Eldoret to #Kampala takes 3-5 days to cover 350 kms, not because of the distance but because of weighbridges, inspections, and endless queues at Malaba border. Compare that with Europe, where a truck can cross three countries in the same timeframe without stopping once. It’s not that Africa doesn’t produce enough food—it’s that food moves slower than the demand. Tomatoes grown in northern #Nigeria rot before reaching #Lagos. Fish caught in Lake Victoria can take longer to arrive in #Nairobi than frozen salmon #imported from Norway. Farmers lose as much as 30–40% of their produce post-harvest, not due to lack of skill, but due to weak supply chains. Every extra day on the road is not just a cost; it is food wasted, income lost, and nutrition denied. This inefficiency shapes more than diets; it shapes economies. In Africa, #logistics costs can absorb up to 40% of the price of goods, compared to 10–15% in developed regions. That means a family in #Dakar spends more on the same bag of rice than a family in Paris, not because the rice is better, but because it traveled a broken path. It also means local #businesses can’t compete with imports that have smoother journeys, despite being shipped from oceans away. Yet the potential is staggering. If Africa’s food could travel in 7 days instead of 23, #farm incomes would rise, food inflation would fall, and regional #trade could grow beyond the current 15% of total trade. The African Continental Free Trade Area (#AfCFTA) is an ambitious attempt to address these bottlenecks by reducing tariffs & harmonizing rules. But the truth is, trade doesn’t flow on paper agreements—it flows on roads, rails, and #ports. The solution isn’t just building highways; it’s fixing border systems, digitizing processes, and ensuring that a truck driver spends time driving, not waiting. The continent doesn’t have a food production problem. It has a food movement problem. So the real question is—will Africa learn to move what it already grows, before it rushes to grow what it cannot yet move? 🔄️ Repost to your network to educate others.

Despite a boom in food production in Africa, food insecurity has grown too. A new World Bank report explores how transport is a critical but often overlooked driver.     Poor transport connectivity and related factors result in long food supply chains that are 4X longer than those in Europe.     A new model developed by the World Bank has found that a strategic focus on 10 African ports and 20 critical border crossings could enhance food security for millions in the region.    Priority actions for food security must include investments in advanced infrastructure for bulk food handling, removing trade barriers to reduce delays and costs at borders, enhancing transport competition to drive efficiency and reducing costs and boost infra-Africa trade.    DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT: 🔗 http://wrld.bg/bIe050VViwg

𝐆𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐈’𝐦 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 (𝐁𝐅𝐒𝐈), 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 (𝐈𝐌𝐁𝐬) 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬. 𝐃𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤, 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡: 🔷 Make sure you’re doing proper sourcing due diligence on any outsourced vendors you’re considering.  🔸 Fly-by-night outsourced vendors aren’t going to cut it. They skimp on the basics to keep their margins reasonable, causing impacts to service delivery and relationship support.  🔸They also bring a “whole laundry list” of other potential risks, such as infosec and financial health.  🔸Sure, not all of them are bad, but why roll the dice with untested vendors, especially when there’s so much riding on it? Go with a Tier 1 or 2 provider you know can deliver real value with less headache. 🔷 As Everest rightly pointed out (see link in comments), just because you outsource, you can’t ignore ensuring compliance with regulatory obligations. Outsourcing isn’t a “set it and forget it” relationship.   🔸 It’s essential to demonstrate to regulators that appropriate levels of ongoing oversight are in place based on the risk the outsourced relationship poses. 🔸 This includes solid processes for vendor tiering and treatment strategies, ongoing risk assessments, change control (particularly with material changes in contractual scope), communication and governance routines, compliance monitoring, scorecards, performance oversight, corrective action, contingency planning, termination, and offboarding. 🔷 Regulators expect your outsourced provider to comply with applicable laws and regulations, just as they do you. 🔸 Therefore, ensuring your contracts are buttoned up and offer necessary protections is crucial. 🔷 With critical processes such as Risk and Compliance, I’d never advocate outsourcing an entire function.  🔸 Orgs must set guidance around their risk appetite and tolerance, which should help inform outsourcing strategies. --------------------------------- Would love to hear from my network, TPRM, and Risk\ Compliance folks... What's your take?

8 weeks. That’s all we had. In 2021, just before Thanksgiving, I was brought in to help a major retailer. The year before, they had lost nearly £1 million in only 1.5 hours of downtime. The failure was so severe that the Development Head was fired. This time, there were no non-functional requirements in place. The QA Head and I had to prevent history from repeating itself. The pressure was enormous: SMEs were too busy to help. No performance benchmarks existed. The biggest shopping season was approaching fast. So we started from scratch: 1. Used production data to identify real-world patterns 2. Focused on 4 critical workflows (like the gift card surge) 3. Built load and endurance tests around those flows 4. Partnered with developers to fix bottlenecks quickly 5. Created a live monitoring team to catch issues early The result? 1. Near five-nines availability 2. No major outages 3. And the QA Head got promoted The lesson: You don’t need perfect requirements. You need urgency, focus, and cross-functional action. If you’re heading into a risky season, ask yourself: What’s your most fragile revenue path? Do you know how it behaves under stress? Are you waiting for failure to tell you where to look? 📣 What would you do if you had 8 weeks to stop a million-pound mistake?

I make a statement. The European Union's nitrogen-based fertiliser industry has traditionally been heavily dependent on gas of Russian origin. However, in the past three years, it has also become increasingly reliant on Russian nitrogen fertilisers. The import statistics speak for themselves: - 2021: The EU imported approximately 2.33 million metric tonnes of fertilisers from Russia. - 2022: Imports increased to around 2.56 million metric tonnes. - 2023: A slight decrease occurred, with imports totalling approximately 2.44 million metric tonnes. - First half of 2024: Remarkably, in just the first six months, imports reached 2.56 million metric tonnes, matching the total for the entire year of 2022. These figures highlight a growing dependence on Russian fertilisers. There is a rising advocacy for imposing duties on Russian nitrogen fertilisers, with some suggesting a 30-40% range to support local EU production. If such duties are imposed-particularly before the spring application season-who stands to benefit the most, aside from European producers? Reflecting on 2022, when the EU temporarily removed its import duties of 6.5% on all producers except Russia and Belarus, we observed various origins supplying the EU market. In this scenario, Nigeria, well-situated geographically, could become a significant beneficiary. Egyptian and Algerian producers might also strengthen their positions, and producers from the Arabian Gulf are likely to seek a share of this market. As for Russia, after increasing its presence in LatAm (including WC of Mexico and Argentina), India (during tenders), Turkey, and the US, it is anticipated that they will intensify efforts in East Africa and Southeast Asian markets. This could lead to notable shifts in global trading patterns. #imstory #fertilizers #fertilisers #nitrogen #urea #europe #eu #russia #nigeria #turkey #brazil #argentina #mexico #usa 

Founders often think that QA is just an added cost to be managed. But in reality, QA and software testing are all about revenue. Here’s how: 1 - Preventing downtime Downtime costs $6k+ PER MINUTE for the average software company. If your software goes down, it might cost you revenue directly… or it might be more indirect. Where customers call to complain, you pay for customer service and block customers from using your product. They don’t renew. They don’t upgrade. They don’t give testimonials. 2 - Preventing defects/bugs Defects are costly, too. We’ve heard stories of companies losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue PER DAY due to defects. And other stories of massive customer churn due to big defects. You can’t completely eliminate defects, but you shouldn’t ignore the fact that they are costly, and investing in testing finds them so that you can solve them and improve your overall QA process. 3 - Preventing roadmap delays I have yet to meet a product leader who’s not frustrated (or getting burned) by roadmap delays. These delays are almost *always* connected to last-minute testing and bugfixes. Which can delay new features by days, weeks, or more. This is a revenue problem: The “Cost of Delay” is a metric we should all take more seriously. It answers the question, “How much revenue do we lose by shipping late?” With good, fast testing, product teams can actually hit their roadmap goals and gain insights on how to improve the overall quality. “Cost of Delay” is a great way to get the organization to invest in testing + QA!

🎯 Let's Talk Linguistic Precision in the Age of AI As generative AI becomes embedded in writing programs and literature search databases, I've noticed something concerning: the blurring of critical linguistic distinctions that signal evidence strength. Consider the consequences of an AI outputting "proves" for correlational findings, or "suggests" for experimental results. 🙀 Here's a practical guide to maintain precision in research writing: 🧪 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 (𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞) 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 🔍 𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐬𝐢-𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥 (𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥) 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 📊 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 (𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧) 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰-𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 ⚖️ 𝐓𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 (𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞) 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘵 💭 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 (𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥) 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 Think: Theoretical frameworks, hypotheses 🤔 Why This Matters: When AI tools use "proves" instead of "correlates with," they blur the lines between correlation and causation. When they say "demonstrates" for preliminary findings, they oversell uncertainty. These distinctions aren't just academic - they're fundamental to scientific integrity. #ResearchMethods #AcademicWriting #AI #DataScience #ResearchCommunity #Science Note: Visual made with napkin.ai.

As a quality consultant, one challenge I frequently observe, especially in small CROs and biotech companies, is the extensive outsourcing of key activities due to limited internal infrastructure. Outsourcing becomes problematic when vendors are engaged informally, often based on recommendations from partners or personal networks, without a proper qualification process. Fast forward a few months (or years), and you may discover that the service provider is not fit for purpose, jeopardising compliance, quality standards, or project delivery. So how can companies avoid this? ✅ Have a clear, pragmatic SOP for Service Provider Identification, Selection, and Management. ✅ Implement a robust due diligence process when evaluating new providers. ✅ Develop and maintain a Vendor Management Plan that includes regular performance reviews and re-qualification. 💡 Early structure saves future headaches. A solid vendor management framework is not about adding bureaucracy, it’s about making informed, auditable, and quality-driven decisions. How does your organisation ensure service providers remain fit for purpose over time? #clinicalresearch #qualitymanagement #outsourcing

First it was “offshore.” Now it’s “RISE.” Different name. Same delivery gaps. In the 2000s, we rushed to outsource infrastructure and operations offshore. It sounded efficient. It looked good on the balance sheet. Until… • SLAs were missed • Visibility disappeared • And “coordination” became a full-time job Now, we’re doing it again — but this time it’s called “managed services,” wrapped in a cloud logo, and sold as “RISE with SAP.” What’s changed? Not much. • Requests still take weeks. • Visibility still suffers. • Teams still get burned trying to stitch together workflows across multiple vendors. The packaging improved. But the delivery model? Still allergic to automation. Still relying on humans passing tickets across silos. Still making your internal team the glue. We didn’t build automation into our outsourcing model the first time. And now we’re outsourcing again… without fixing the foundation. It’s not just about what you outsource. It’s about how much operational weight you’re still forced to carry. If your “RISE” feels more like a rerun… Maybe it’s time to ask why we’re still falling for the same pitch.