Escaping the Price-Cutting Trap

 

Escaping the Price-Cutting Trap: A Manufacturing Turnaround with TOC

The relentless pressure to compete on price and cut costs is a familiar challenge for many manufacturers. However, constantly slashing prices and squeezing margins is not a sustainable path to long-term success. The Theory of Constraints (TOC) offers a powerful alternative, focusing on maximizing Throughput – the rate at which the system generates money through sales – instead of fixating on cost reduction. By identifying and managing constraints, aligning the entire organization, and developing a decisive competitive edge, manufacturers can break free from the price-cutting spiral and achieve sustainable growth.

This article presents an 18-month roadmap for implementing TOC principles in a manufacturing business, outlining the steps to take, the timeline for action, the expected outcomes, and the resources needed for success.

Phase 1: Identify and Exploit the Constraint (Months 1-3)

• Month 1:

  • Step 1: Constraint Identification: Begin by assembling a team comprising a Process Analyst and a Data Analyst. The Process Analyst will lead the analysis of your manufacturing process to pinpoint the bottleneck that limits overall production capacity. This could be a specific machine, a skilled labour shortage, or even market demand. The Data Analyst will support the Process Analyst in collecting data on the constraint’s performance, including uptime, downtime, output rate, and quality issues. This data will be crucial for understanding the constraint’s behaviour and identifying improvement opportunities.
  • Expected Benefit: A clear understanding of the constraint that is limiting your Throughput.

• Months 2-3:

  • Step 2: Exploit the Constraint: Bring an Industrial Engineer onto the team. Working closely with the production team, the Industrial Engineer will implement measures to maximise the constraint’s utilization, ensuring it is never idle due to preventable issues like material shortages, unplanned maintenance, or working on low-priority tasks. This might involve:
    • Optimizing material flow: Implementing a pull system, such as Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR), to ensure timely material delivery to the constraint.
    • Improving maintenance practices: Implementing preventive maintenance programs and reducing setup times to minimize downtime.
    • Prioritizing production orders: Scheduling high-priority orders that contribute the most to Throughput to be processed first by the constraint.
  • Expected Benefit: Increased Throughput and potentially shorter lead times.

Phase 2: Subordinate and Elevate (Months 4-9)

• Months 4-6:

  • Step 3: Subordinate Everything Else: Integrate an experienced Production Planner into the team. This individual will be responsible for aligning all other processes and resources to support the constraint’s smooth and efficient functioning. This may require:
    • Adjusting production schedules: Synchronize the schedules of upstream and downstream operations with the constraint’s output rate.
    • Redesigning workflows: Modify processes and procedures to ensure they don’t create bottlenecks or delays for the constraint.
    • Training and cross-training: Develop a flexible workforce capable of supporting the constraint’s needs.
  • Expected Benefit: Improved flow and reduced work-in-process inventory, further enhancing Throughput.

• Months 7-9:

  • Step 4: Elevate the Constraint: If exploiting and subordinating are insufficient to achieve the desired Throughput increase, bring a Project Manager onto the team to oversee the investment in elevating the constraint’s capacity. This may involve:
    • Upgrading equipment: Purchasing a faster machine, adding tooling, or automating tasks at the constraint.
    • Hiring specialized skills: Expanding the team with individuals possessing the expertise needed to operate the constraint at its full potential.
    • Outsourcing: Transferring non-core tasks to external partners to free up capacity at the constraint.
  • Expected Benefit: Significant increase in Throughput, enabling the company to accept more orders and grow its business.

Phase 3: Building a Decisive Competitive Edge (Months 10-15)

• Month 10:

  • Step 5: Market Research and Analysis: Engage a Market Research Analyst. This individual will conduct thorough research to identify customer needs, competitive offerings, and potential opportunities for differentiation.
  • Expected Benefit: Deep understanding of the market landscape, customer needs, and competitive opportunities.

• Month 11:

  • Step 6: Defining Your DCE: Work with your Marketing and Sales Manager to determine your unique value proposition based on the market analysis. This could be based on:
    • Exceptional lead times: Streamlining your operations to offer faster delivery times than competitors.
    • Guaranteed availability: Implementing robust inventory management systems to ensure consistent product availability.
    • Unmatched quality: Investing in quality control and improvement initiatives to deliver superior product reliability.
    • Unrivalled customization: Offering a wider range of product configurations or bespoke solutions to cater to specific customer requirements.
  • Expected Benefit: A clearly defined DCE that will set your company apart from competitors.

• Months 12-15:

  • Step 7: Aligning the Organization: Bring a Change Management Consultant onboard to facilitate the alignment of the entire organization, ensuring all departments – from marketing and sales to production and logistics – are aligned toward supporting the DCE. This requires:
    • Developing consistent messaging: Communicate the DCE clearly and consistently across all customer touchpoints.
    • Refining sales processes: Train sales teams to effectively present the DCE and its value to customers.
    • Aligning internal metrics and incentives: Ensure everyone is rewarded for contributing to the successful delivery of the DCE.
  • Expected Benefit: A cohesive organization focused on delivering the DCE and achieving shared goals.

**Phase 4: Sustaining and Improving (Months 16-18) **

• Month 16:

  • Step 8: Performance Monitoring and Measurement: Engage a Business Analyst to assist in setting up a robust performance monitoring system to track key metrics related to Throughput, constraint utilization, and customer satisfaction.
  • Expected Benefit: Data-driven insights to support ongoing improvement efforts.

• Months 17-18:

  • Step 9: Continuous Improvement: With the support of a dedicated Continuous Improvement Facilitator, establish a culture of continuous improvement, encouraging employees to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies and to suggest solutions. The facilitator will train employees on problem-solving methodologies, facilitate improvement workshops, and help implement a structured process for managing improvement initiatives.
  • Step 10: Strategic Adaptation: Continuously monitor the competitive landscape and adapt your strategy and DCE as needed to maintain your market advantage.
  • Expected Benefit: Sustained growth and profitability by continuously adapting to market dynamics and customer needs.

Beyond Individual Roles:

• Leadership commitment and active involvement from top management are crucial throughout the entire implementation process. Top management must champion the TOC initiative, communicate the vision clearly, and provide the necessary resources and support to ensure its success. They should be actively involved in key decisions and regularly review the progress of the implementation.
• Cross-functional collaboration and communication are also essential. By forming a cohesive team with representatives from different departments, you can foster a shared understanding of the TOC principles and their application. This collaborative approach will break down silos, promote buy-in, and enable a smoother implementation process. Regular team meetings, workshops, and communication updates will help keep everyone informed and engaged.

Remember that this is a general guideline, and the specific roles and their required involvement may vary depending on your company’s size, complexity, and available resources. The key is to assemble a competent and committed team that can effectively drive the TOC implementation and support the organization’s transformation.

In-fighting between departments

 In-fighting between departments, a common ailment in many organisations, can significantly impede overall productivity and success. This friction typically stems from misaligned goals, differing priorities, and a lack of understanding of the interconnectedness of various departments' contributions to the overall objective. Here are some strategies, grounded in the Theory of Constraints (TOC) and insights from the provided sources, to mitigate in-fighting and foster a more collaborative work environment:

1. Establish a Unified Goal and Measurement System:

• Shifting from Local to Global Optimization: A primary cause of in-fighting is the tendency for departments to focus on optimizing their own performance, even at the expense of the overall system. To combat this, it is crucial to establish a shared goal that aligns all departments towards a common purpose. This goal should not be about increasing sales or profit, but rather about maximizing Throughput, the rate at which the system generates money through sales. This shift in focus from local to global optimization helps to break down silos and encourages departments to work together to achieve a common objective.
• Implementing a Common Performance Metric: Aligning departments towards a single goal requires a clear, consistent way to measure progress. Using disparate metrics often leads to conflicting priorities and fuels in-fighting. A unified metric, such as Throughput Dollar Days (TDD), which measures the financial impact of delays in fulfilling commitments, can provide a common ground for evaluating performance across departments. This shared metric encourages collaboration and reduces conflicts that arise from departments pursuing different or even conflicting performance standards.

2. Enhance Communication and Understanding:

• Breaking Down Communication Barriers: One of the root causes of interdepartmental conflict is a lack of understanding of how each department contributes to the overall goal. Encourage regular cross-functional meetings, workshops, and communication channels that allow departments to share their perspectives, challenges, and successes. This open dialogue can foster empathy and collaboration, reducing the likelihood of conflicts stemming from misunderstandings or a lack of awareness of other departments' priorities.
• Promoting System Thinking: In-fighting often arises from a narrow, local view of problems. Equip employees with the tools and training to understand the entire system, recognizing how their work impacts other departments and the overall organization. TOC tools like the Current Reality Tree (CRT) can be particularly helpful in visually mapping out cause-and-effect relationships within the system, highlighting the interconnectedness of various departments and the potential ramifications of local decisions.
• Identifying and Addressing Core Conflicts: TOC's Thinking Processes tools, like the Evaporating Cloud (EC) or the Conflict Cloud, can be invaluable for resolving recurring conflicts. These tools guide teams through a systematic process of identifying the underlying assumptions driving the conflict and developing win-win solutions that address the needs of all parties involved. By addressing the root causes of conflict rather than merely treating the symptoms, organisations can create a more harmonious and productive work environment.

3. Re-evaluate Incentives and Reward Systems:

• Aligning Incentives with the Unified Goal: Traditional performance evaluation and reward systems often inadvertently encourage in-fighting by rewarding individual departments for achieving localized goals, even if those goals conflict with the overall organisational objectives. It's crucial to re-design reward systems to incentivize collaboration and contributions to the shared goal of maximizing Throughput. This might involve rewarding teams or departments for their collective performance on metrics like TDD, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and success.
• Recognising and Rewarding Collaborative Behaviour: Beyond financial incentives, actively acknowledge and appreciate instances of collaboration and cross-functional support. Publicly recognizing teams or individuals who go above and beyond to help other departments can reinforce the desired behaviour and encourage a culture of collaboration.

4. Empowering Teams and Individuals:

• Delegating Authority and Responsibility: In-fighting is often exacerbated when individuals or teams lack the authority to make decisions that impact their work. Empowering employees to make decisions within their areas of expertise can streamline processes, reduce bottlenecks, and minimize the need for constant intervention from higher levels of management. Clear delegation of authority coupled with a robust system of accountability can foster a sense of ownership and responsibility, reducing the likelihood of conflicts arising from perceived power imbalances.
• Cultivating a Culture of Trust and Respect: A collaborative environment requires a foundation of trust and respect between individuals and departments. Encourage open communication, active listening, and constructive feedback. Celebrate diversity of thought and recognize that conflict can be a catalyst for innovation and improvement when addressed constructively.

By implementing these strategies, organisations can shift from a culture of in-fighting to one of collaboration, unlocking the full potential of their workforce and achieving significantly improved performance.

profit margin as the primary metric

 Focusing solely on profit margin as the primary metric for business success can be misleading and detrimental to the overall health of an organization. While profit margin is undoubtedly important, it doesn't capture the complete picture, particularly when it comes to understanding cash flow and the flow of products through the system.

Here's why fixating on profit margin can be misleading:

• Profit margin doesn't account for the velocity of money. A business can have a high profit margin on a product, but if it takes a long time to sell, the cash flow can be sluggish. In a cash-constrained situation, prioritizing products with high cash velocity, even if they have a lower profit margin, can be more beneficial for the company's survival.
• Overemphasis on profit margin can lead to inventory build-up. If the focus is solely on maximizing profit margin, a company might be tempted to produce large batches of products to reduce unit costs. This can lead to an excess of inventory, tying up cash and potentially leading to obsolescence and storage costs.
• Ignoring the constraint can lead to suboptimal decisions. The Theory of Constraints (TOC) emphasizes that the overall performance of a system is determined by its weakest link, the constraint. Focusing solely on profit margin without considering the impact on the constraint can lead to decisions that maximize local profits but hinder the overall throughput of the system.
• Short-term profit maximization can hurt long-term growth. A relentless pursuit of maximizing profit margin in the short term can lead to neglecting investments in areas like research and development, marketing, and employee training. These investments may impact short-term profits but are essential for the long-term sustainability and growth of the business.

Here's a simplified example:

Let's say a company manufactures widgets with a production capacity of 10,000 units per month. The actual market demand for widgets is 8,000 units per month.

●

Scenario 1: Matching Production to Demand

○

The company produces 8,000 widgets, incurring a fixed overhead cost of £80,000 (equivalent to £10 per widget).

○

All 8,000 units are sold.

○

The income statement reflects the actual profit generated from the sale of 8,000 units.

●

Scenario 2: Overproducing to Inflate Inventory

○

The company produces 10,000 widgets, incurring the same fixed overhead cost of £80,000.

○

Only 8,000 units are sold.

○

The remaining 2,000 units are added to the finished goods inventory.

○

Instead of expensing the full £80,000 overhead cost, the company allocates a portion of it (e.g., £20,000) to the 2,000 units held in inventory.

○

This reduces the overhead cost reported on the income statement, artificially inflating the profit for the current period.

The balance sheet would also reflect this inflated inventory value, creating a more favorable picture of the company's assets. However, this profit and asset increase is deceptive:

●

The unsold inventory doesn't represent actual cash flow. The company has tied up resources in producing goods that haven't yet generated revenue.

●

The allocated overhead cost will eventually have to be recognized. When the excess inventory is sold (possibly at a discount), or written off as obsolete, the previously deferred overhead cost will hit the income statement, eroding the initially inflated profit.

This practice is unsustainable. Eventually, the buildup of unsold inventory and the delayed recognition of costs will reveal the company's true financial position. This tactic might temporarily boost the company's stock price or secure a favorable loan, but it will eventually harm the business, leading to:

●

Distrust from investors and creditors when the true financial picture is revealed

●

Potential cash flow problems due to excessive inventory holding costs

●

Difficulty in accurately assessing the company's profitability and making sound strategic decisions

A more holistic approach that considers both cash flow and the flow of products through the system is essential for sustained business success.

Here's what a more comprehensive approach looks like:

• Focus on Throughput. TOC advocates for maximizing Throughput, which is defined as the rate at which the system generates "goal units" or, in simpler terms, the rate at which the company generates money through sales. This means prioritizing products or services that contribute the most to the overall cash flow, even if they don't have the highest individual profit margins.
• Manage the constraint effectively. Identify the constraint in the system and make decisions that maximize its utilization. This might involve prioritizing certain products over others, adjusting batch sizes, or investing in capacity improvements.
• Maintain a healthy cash flow. Ensure that the company has sufficient cash on hand to meet its short-term obligations and invest in future growth. This might involve shortening customer payment terms, negotiating favorable supplier terms, and carefully managing inventory levels.
• Balance short-term and long-term goals. Don't sacrifice long-term growth for short-term profit gains. Invest in areas that will ensure the company's future competitiveness and sustainability, such as developing new products, expanding into new markets, and building a strong brand reputation.

By shifting the focus from solely profit margin to a more holistic approach that emphasizes Throughput, constraint management, and cash flow, businesses can achieve greater long-term success and avoid the pitfalls of short-sighted decision-making.

boost profit numbers

a company can temporarily boost its profit numbers by manipulating inventory levels, making the balance sheet appear more favorable for a short period. However, this practice is unsustainable and ultimately detrimental to the long-term health of the business.

Here's how manipulating inventory can artificially inflate profits:

• Overproducing to inflate inventory value: By producing more goods than required by actual demand, companies can increase the value of their finished goods inventory. Since accounting standards often allow fixed overhead costs to be absorbed into inventory value, this practice can temporarily boost reported profits.

  • However, this profit increase is an illusion, as the actual cash flow hasn't improved. The overproduced inventory may become obsolete, require discounting to sell, or incur storage costs, ultimately eroding the initial profit illusion.

• Delaying inventory write-offs: Companies may postpone writing off obsolete or slow-moving inventory to avoid reporting losses on their income statements. While this can maintain the appearance of profitability for a while, it only delays the inevitable recognition of the loss and distorts the company's true financial position.

• Manipulating inventory valuation methods: Companies might switch to inventory valuation methods that assign higher values to existing inventory, such as the Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) method during periods of rising prices. This can temporarily increase reported profits, but it doesn't reflect the actual market value of the inventory or the company's underlying financial performance.

The Consequences of Manipulating Inventory

While manipulating inventory might create a short-term illusion of success, it ultimately harms the business in various ways:

• Distorted financial reporting: Inventory manipulation leads to inaccurate financial statements, misleading investors, creditors, and other stakeholders about the company's true financial health.
• Eroded cash flow: Overproduction and holding excess inventory tie up cash, potentially leading to cash flow shortages, impacting the company's ability to meet its financial obligations and invest in growth opportunities.
• Increased risk of obsolescence: Holding excessive inventory increases the risk of products becoming obsolete or losing value, ultimately resulting in write-offs and losses.
• Hidden inefficiencies: Manipulating inventory can mask underlying operational inefficiencies, preventing companies from addressing the root causes of problems, such as inaccurate forecasting, long lead times, or production bottlenecks.

Focus on Sustainable Practices

Instead of resorting to short-term manipulations, companies should prioritize building sustainable business practices that generate genuine profits and long-term value:

• Accurate forecasting: Invest in robust forecasting methods to anticipate demand accurately and avoid overproduction or stockouts.
• Constraint management: Identify and manage the constraint within the production system to maximize throughput and avoid building up inventory at non-constraint stages.
• Inventory optimization: Implement inventory management techniques like those advocated by the Theory of Constraints, focusing on strategically positioning inventory to protect flow while minimizing holding costs.
• Transparency and ethical accounting: Adhere to ethical accounting standards that accurately reflect the company's financial position, fostering trust with stakeholders and enabling informed decision-making.

Sustainable business success comes from generating genuine value for customers, not manipulating numbers. Companies should focus on building operational excellence, efficient inventory management, and ethical financial reporting to achieve lasting profitability and growth.

The Looming MBA Crisis: A Threat to Universities Everywhere 大學所臨之患

 

論工商碩士之危：大學所臨之患

商界瞬息萬變，育才之高等學府若不應時而變，必臨重禍。工商碩士之教，隱伏危機，危及非止商學院，乃及全校。此患源於工商碩士之數，恐與市場所需之技不相符。

近年商學院驟增，工商碩士之數亦隨之驟升。此或遠超市場所需，致使多數畢業生求職維艱，難償所望之厚祿。此情猶如昔日法學院，畢業生供過於求，求職日蹙，新生遂減。

工商碩士供過於求，兼以就業市場之變。昔日工商碩士猶如金券，可保仕途坦蕩，然今雇主重實踐經驗與專精之技，輕泛泛之商學。此變或將進一步削弱工商碩士之需，尤以非頂尖學府之工商碩士為甚。

大學之財政，與各院系之興衰休戚相關。商學院，尤以興盛者，常為財源之重，廣納學子，學費收入甚豐。若工商碩士之招生驟減，大學必臨財政窘迫。此財政壓力將波及各方：

削減預算：大學或被迫削減各院系之預算，影響學術課程、科研項目及整體教學質量。

資源匱乏：圖書館、信息技術設施及行政服務等共享資源，或將面臨經費削減，波及他院系，或致大學服務質量下降。

聲譽受損：商學院之衰頹，可損及大學整體聲譽，使潛在學生與教員望而卻步。此或致他院系招生亦減，更增財政之困。

人員流失：大學或須凍結招聘、薪酬，乃至裁員，以應財政之窘。各院系之賢師良才流失，可損教學與科研之質量。

創新受阻：預算之限，可迫使大學削減新課程、科研及基礎設施之投入。此或扼殺創新，阻礙大學追趕學術與產業之變。

工商碩士之潛在危機，實為大學之系統性風險。此凸顯高等教育體系內各環節之脆弱。農學院之例，可見一院系之衰頹，如何波及全校。農學院之萎縮，致使財政壓力驟增，引發全面削減，可見大學財政之相互依存。若商學院亦臨此境，其禍亦然。

大學須積極應對此隱憂。其策如下：

監測市場趨勢：密切關注就業市場之變，及工商碩士之需求，尤以產業所需之技為要。

調整課程：持續更新調整工商碩士之課程，以應當前產業之需。重實踐之技、專精之識及實戰經驗，兼顧泛泛之商學。

控制成本：於商學院及全校範圍內，實施成本控制及效率提升之策。探尋削減行政開銷、優化資源利用及有效管理支出之法。

多元化收入：探尋學費以外之新財源。如與產業合作、高管教育課程、在線課程及可獲外部資助之科研合作等。

若不應對工商碩士之潛在危機，或致大學全面之財政危機，影響教學、科研及大學於學術界之地位。須行果斷之舉，以保商學院及所賴之大學之長期可持續發展。

The Looming MBA Crisis: A Threat to Universities Everywhere

The business world is in constant flux, and the higher education system that feeds it talent must adapt or face serious consequences. A potential crisis is brewing in MBA education, threatening not just business schools but entire universities. This looming crisis stems from a possible mismatch between the number of MBA graduates and the actual demand for their skills in the evolving marketplace.

The rapid expansion of business schools in recent years has led to a surge in the number of MBA graduates. This could easily outstrip market demand, leaving many graduates struggling to find well-paying jobs that meet their expectations. This mirrors the situation seen in law schools, where an oversupply of graduates led to a decline in job prospects and a subsequent drop in new student enrollments.

The potential oversupply of MBAs is compounded by the changing nature of the job market itself. While an MBA was once considered a golden ticket to corporate success, the value of the degree may be diminishing as employers prioritize practical experience and specialized skills over general business knowledge. This shift could further reduce the demand for MBAs, particularly from institutions without the prestige and reputation of top-tier universities.

The financial health of a university is deeply intertwined with the success of its individual departments. Business schools, especially flourishing ones, are often major revenue generators, attracting large numbers of students and contributing substantially to tuition income. If MBA enrolment dwindles, universities will experience a significant reduction in financial resources. This financial strain will ripple outwards, affecting various aspects of the university:

• Budget cuts: Universities may be forced to implement budget cuts across departments, impacting academic programs, research initiatives, and the overall quality of education.
• Resource scarcity: Shared resources like libraries, IT infrastructure, and administrative services could face funding cuts, impacting other departments and potentially lowering the quality of university services.
• Reputational damage: A struggling business school can tarnish the reputation of the university as a whole, making it less appealing to potential students and faculty. This can lead to lower admissions across other departments, further exacerbating financial challenges.
• Staff losses: Universities may have to implement hiring freezes, salary freezes, or even layoffs to cope with financial constraints. Losing talented faculty and staff across departments can negatively impact the quality of education and research.
• Reduced innovation: Budget limitations can force universities to cut back on investments in new programs, research, and infrastructure development. This can stifle innovation and hinder the university's ability to keep pace with changing academic and industry trends.

The potential crisis in MBA education presents a systemic risk to universities. It highlights the vulnerability of interconnected systems within the higher education landscape. The example of the agricultural school demonstrates the cascading impact of a declining program on the entire university. The financial burden created by the shrinking agricultural school led to widespread cuts, showcasing the interdependence of university finances. The same could happen if business schools experience a similar downturn.

Universities need to take proactive steps to address this looming challenge. They must:

• Monitor market trends: Closely track changes in the job market and the demand for MBAs, especially in relation to evolving industry needs and skill requirements.
• Adapt curriculum: Continuously update and adapt MBA curriculum to align with current industry demands. Focus on developing practical skills, specialized knowledge, and real-world experience alongside general business principles.
• Control costs: Implement measures to control costs and improve efficiency across business schools and the wider university. Explore ways to reduce administrative overhead, optimize resource utilization, and manage expenses effectively.
• Diversify revenue streams: Explore new avenues for generating revenue beyond traditional tuition fees. This could include partnerships with industry, executive education programs, online courses, and research collaborations that bring in external funding.

Failure to address the potential MBA crisis could lead to a university-wide financial crisis, affecting the quality of education, research, and the institution's overall standing in the academic world. Bold action is needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of business schools and the universities they support.

彭健欽 集體物流集團（CDS Logistics）

 集體物流集團（CDS Logistics）

• 彭健欽：前南華早報推廣及發行經理，於1987年收購了陳泉經營的全通公司，並成立集體物流集團（CDS Logistics）。2011年出版了《我在南華早報的日子》一書。

• 陳泉：在無線電視劇「香港8x」系列中飾演順叔，經營電視台外景車公司全通，被稱為「廣播道交通大王」，甚至有行家戲稱廣播道為「陳泉道」。後移民溫哥華，將生意賣給彭健欽。

• 黎智英（肥佬黎）：創辦壹傳媒集團，其旗下的adMart曾激發百佳和惠康推出送貨服務。

• 集體物流集團的成立：1987年，彭健欽收購了陳泉經營的全通公司，成立了集體物流集團（CDS Logistics），又名順錦集團，未知是否為了紀念陳泉飾演的「順叔」這個角色。

• 陳泉的早期事業：陳泉最初只擁有一部貨車，後來發展到壟斷廣播道五台山電視台的外景車生意，因此贏得「廣播道交通大王」的稱號。

• 集體物流的發展：彭健欽收購全通後，看準了當時香港便利店的發展潛力（當時只有約100家，現已超過1300家），首先幫助星島及文匯報將報紙發行到便利店，之後業務拓展到其他貨品。千禧年後，受到黎智英創辦的adMart影響，百佳和惠康也開始提供送貨服務，集體運輸因此獲得了百佳及其所屬的和黃集團的bigBoxx辦公室用品送貨生意。在2000年代初，集體運輸的營業額曾達到二億元。

• 集體物流的結業：由於擴展速度過快以及受到嘉里等大型企業的競爭，集體物流於2005年突然結業。

趙小蘭

 美國運輸部長趙小蘭及其家族背景

• 唐納·川普（Donald Trump）：美國前總統。
• 喬·拜登（Joe Biden）：美國現任總統，據傳有意委任Rahm Emanuel接替趙小蘭的職位。
• 趙小蘭（Elaine Chao）：美國前運輸部長，家族經營福茂航運集團。
• 拉姆·伊曼紐爾（Rahm Emanuel）：奧巴馬的前幕僚長，據傳可能被拜登委任為運輸部長。
• 麥克·彭斯（Mike Pence）：美國前副總統。
• 趙錫成（James S.C. Chao）：趙小蘭的父親，曾是船長，福茂航運集團的創辦人之一。
• 米奇·麥康諾（Mitch McConnell）：參議院共和黨領袖，趙小蘭的丈夫。
• 吳仲亞（T.Y. Wu）：德和輪船公司的負責人，是福茂航運集團的創始股東之一，也是香港船東中的帶頭人。
• 劉仲嘉：吳仲亞過世後，與盧強華一同主持德和輪船公司，後與新昌葉家的海運航業合併為德和海運。
• 盧強華：吳仲亞過世後，與劉仲嘉一同主持德和輪船公司，後與新昌葉家的海運航業合併為德和海運。
• 新昌葉家: 與德和輪船公司合併成立德和海運。

• 福茂航運集團的創立：1964年，由香港五位船東出資在美國成立福茂航運，負責公司營運。趙錫成獲分配乾股兩成。其中，德和輪船公司的吳仲亞是香港船東中的帶頭人。

• 福茂的早期發展：福茂最初幾年從台灣訂船，幫助美國政府運載農產品到越戰中的越南，發展迅速。

• 福茂的轉折與發展：1972年，公司遇到困難，其他股東退出，將公司讓給趙錫成。目前，福茂擁有33艘貨船，大部分在中國建造，並行駛到中國大陸的航線。

• 趙家財力：2012年，趙家曾向哈佛商學院捐贈4000萬美元，可見其財力雄厚。

• 德和輪船的後續發展：吳仲亞於1979年過世後，德和輪船在劉仲嘉及盧強華的主持下，與新昌葉家的海運航業合併為德和海運（Teh Hu Cargocean）。