<p>An army of trolls came out to attack reality TV star and SKIMS founder&nbsp;Kim Kardashian&nbsp;after she gave&nbsp;a lecture at the Harvard Business School on Saturday. The 42-year-old was invited to the prestigious college alongside SKIMS co-founder, Jens Grede, to discuss the enormous success the company has seen since going to market in&nbsp;2019.</p>

<p>According to reports,&nbsp;Kardashian's net worth is estimated to be $1.8 billion, while her company SKIMS is estimated to be worth $3.2 billion.</p>

<p>Sharing pictures from the college, Kim wrote, "I spoke At Harvard Business School yesterday for a class called HBS Moving Beyond DTC. The class’s assignment was to learn about @skims, so my partner Jens and I spoke about our marketing, our challenges and our greatest wins. I’m so proud of Skims and the thought that it is a course being studied at Harvard is just crazy!!! Thank you, professor Len Schlesinger and @harvardhbs for having us. #BucketListDream."</p>

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CnsJx9QSjf5/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:16px;">
<div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 19% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CnsJx9QSjf5/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"><svg height="50px" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 60 60" width="50px" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd" stroke="none" stroke-width="1"><g fill="#000000" transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></a></div>

<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CnsJx9QSjf5/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank">View this post on Instagram</a></div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CnsJx9QSjf5/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by Kim Kardashian (@kimkardashian)</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

<p>Kim's post&nbsp;immediately went viral and trolls had a field day posting memes about the reality TV star. "It is crazy,"&nbsp;one user wrote. "@Harvard should be ashamed of themselves," wrote another troll.</p>

<p>Another comment read, "And just like that Harvard’s prestige has evaporated into thin air in my mind. It’s not even worth a case study which it is but you wouldn’t know the difference."</p>

<p>"So Harvard has dropped its standards," penned another.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Celebrities like Paris Hilton and Alicia Keys, meanwhile, congratulated Kim for bagging the opportunity to speak at Harvard.&nbsp;Hilton commented, "That’s hot," with a fire emoji. Keys left 12 fire emojis on Kim’s post.</p>

<p>Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/beyonce-breaks-the-internet-with-her-first-performance-in-4-years-viral-videos-554917">Beyonce breaks the internet with her first performance in 4 years | Viral Videos</a></p>

<p>The beauty mogul's Hulu show 'The Kardashians' has had two successful seasons and fans are eagerly waiting for the third season. While Disney or Hulu&nbsp;haven't shared anything about the show officially, Kourtney Kardashian revealed&nbsp;this month that she has started filming for the third instalment.</p>


An army of trolls came out to attack reality TV star and SKIMS founder Kim Kardashian after she gave a lecture at the Harvard Business School on Saturday. The 42-year-old was invited to the prestigious college alongside SKIMS co-founder, Jens Grede, to discuss the enormous success the company has seen since going to market in 2019.

An army of trolls came out to attack reality TV star and SKIMS founder Kim Kardashian after she gave a lecture at the Harvard Business School on Saturday. The 42-year-old was invited to the prestigious college alongside SKIMS co-founder, Jens Grede, to discuss the enormous success the company has seen since going to market in 2019. According to reports, Kardashian's net worth is estimated to be $1.8 billion, while her company SKIMS is estimated to be worth $3.2 billion. Sharing pictures from the college, Kim wrote, "I spoke At Harvard Business School yesterday for a class called HBS Moving Beyond DTC. The class’s assignment was to learn about @skims, so my partner Jens and I spoke about our marketing, our challenges and our greatest wins. I’m so proud of Skims and the thought that it is a course being studied at Harvard is just crazy!!! Thank you, professor Len Schlesinger and @harvardhbs for having us. #BucketListDream." View this post on Instagram A post shared by Kim Kardashian (@kimkardashian) Kim's post immediately went viral and trolls had a field day posting memes about the reality TV star. "It is crazy," one user wrote. "@Harvard should be ashamed of themselves," wrote another troll. Another comment read, "And just like that Harvard’s prestige has evaporated into thin air in my mind. It’s not even worth a case study which it is but you wouldn’t know the difference." "So Harvard has dropped its standards," penned another. Celebrities like Paris Hilton and Alicia Keys, meanwhile, congratulated Kim for bagging the opportunity to speak at Harvard. Hilton commented, "That’s hot," with a fire emoji. Keys left 12 fire emojis on Kim’s post. Also read: Beyonce breaks the internet with her first performance in 4 years | Viral Videos The beauty mogul's Hulu show 'The Kardashians' has had two successful seasons and fans are eagerly waiting for the third season. While Disney or Hulu haven't shared anything about the show officially, Kourtney Kardashian revealed this month that she has started filming for the third instalment.

Kim Kardashian gives lecture at Harvard Business School; gets brutally trolled online

<p>In the story of how the modern world was constructed, Toyota stands out as the mastermind of a monumental advance in industrial efficiency. The Japanese automaker pioneered so-called Just In Time manufacturing, in which parts are delivered to factories right as they are required, minimizing the need to stockpile them.</p>

<p>Over the past half-century, this approach has captivated global business in industries far beyond autos. From fashion to food processing to pharmaceuticals, companies have embraced Just In Time to stay nimble, allowing them to adapt to changing market demands, while cutting costs.</p>

<p>But the tumultuous events of the past year have challenged the merits of paring inventories, while reinvigorating concerns that some industries have gone too far, leaving them vulnerable to disruption. As the pandemic has hampered factory operations and sown chaos in global shipping, many economies around the world have been bedeviled by shortages of a vast range of goods — from electronics to lumber to clothing.</p>

<p>In a time of extraordinary upheaval in the global economy, Just In Time is running late.</p>

<p>“It’s sort of like supply chain run amok,” said Willy C. Shih, an international trade expert at Harvard Business School. “In a race to get to the lowest cost, I have concentrated my risk. We are at the logical conclusion of all that.”</p>

<p>The most prominent manifestation of too much reliance on Just in Time is found in the very industry that invented it: Automakers have been crippled by a shortage of computer chips — vital car components produced mostly in Asia. Without enough chips on hand, auto factories from India to the United States to Brazil have been forced to halt assembly lines.</p>

<p>But the breadth and persistence of the shortages reveal the extent to which the Just in Time idea has come to dominate commercial life. This helps explain why Nike and other apparel brands struggle to stock retail outlets with their wares. It’s one of the reasons construction companies are having trouble purchasing paints and sealants. It was a principal contributor to the tragic shortages of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic, which left frontline medical workers without adequate gear.</p>

<p>Just In Time has amounted to no less than a revolution in the business world. By keeping inventories thin, major retailers have been able to use more of their space to display a wider array of goods. Just In Time has enabled manufacturers to customize their wares. And lean production has significantly cut costs while allowing companies to pivot quickly to new products.</p>

<p>These virtues have added value to companies, spurred innovation and promoted trade, ensuring that Just In Time will retain its force long after the current crisis abates. The approach has also enriched shareholders by generating savings that companies have distributed in the form of dividends and share buybacks.</p>

<p>Still, the shortages raise questions about whether some companies have been too aggressive in harvesting savings by slashing inventory, leaving them unprepared for whatever trouble inevitably emerges.</p>

<p>“It’s the investments that they don’t make,” said William Lazonick, an economist at the University of Massachusetts.</p>

<p>Intel, the American chipmaker, has outlined plans to spend $20 billion to erect new plants in Arizona. But that is less than the $26 billion that Intel spent on share buybacks in 2018 and 2019 — money the company could have used to expand capacity, Lazonick said.</p>

<p>Some experts assume that the crisis will change the way companies operate, prompting some to stockpile more inventory and forge relationships with extra suppliers as a hedge against problems. But others are dubious, assuming that — same as after past crises — the pursuit of cost savings will again trump other considerations.</p>

<p><strong>Chaos on the Seas</strong></p>

<p>The shortages in the world economy stem from factors beyond lean inventories. The spread of COVID-19 has sidelined port workers and truck drivers, impeding the unloading and distribution of goods made at factories in Asia and arriving by ship to North America and Europe.</p>

<p>The pandemic has slowed sawmill operations, causing a shortage of lumber that has stymied home building in the United States.</p>

<p>Winter storms that shut down petrochemical plants in the Gulf of Mexico have left key products in short supply. Andrew Romano, who runs sales at a chemical company outside Philadelphia, has grown accustomed to telling customers they must wait on their orders.</p>

<p>“You have a confluence of forces,” he said. “It just ripples through the supply.”</p>

<p>Dramatic increases in demand made pet food scarce and Grape-Nuts cereal all but disappear from American store shelves for a time.</p>

<p>Some companies were especially exposed to such forces given that they were already running lean as the crisis began.</p>

<p>And many businesses have combined a dedication to Just In Time with a reliance on suppliers in low-wage countries like China and India, making any disruption to global shipping an immediate problem. That has amplified the damage when something goes awry — as when an enormous vessel lodged in the Suez Canal this year, closing the primary channel linking Europe and Asia.</p>

<p>“People adopted that kind of lean mentality, and then they applied it to supply chains with the assumption that they would have low-cost and reliable shipping,” said Shih, the Harvard Business School trade expert. “Then, you have some shocks to the system.”</p>

<p><strong>An idea that went ‘way too far’</strong></p>

<p>Just In Time was itself an adaptation to turmoil, as Japan mobilized to recover from the devastation of World War II.</p>

<p>Densely populated and lacking in natural resources, Japan sought to conserve land and limit waste. Toyota eschewed warehousing, while choreographing production with suppliers to ensure that parts arrived when needed.</p>

<p>By the 1980s, companies around the globe were emulating Toyota’s production system. Management experts promoted Just In Time as a way to boost profits.</p>

<p>“Companies that run successful lean programs not only save money in warehouse operations but enjoy more flexibility,” declared a 2010 McKinsey presentation for the pharmaceutical industry. It promised savings of up to 50% on warehousing if clients embraced its “lean and mean” approach to supply chains.</p>

<p>Such claims have panned out. Still, one of the authors of that presentation, Knut Alicke, a McKinsey partner based in Germany, now says the corporate world exceeded prudence.</p>

<p>“We went way too far,” Alicke said. “The way that inventory is evaluated will change after the crisis.”</p>

<p>Many companies acted as if manufacturing and shipping were devoid of mishaps, Alicke added, while failing to account for trouble in their business plans.</p>

<p>“There’s no kind of disruption risk term in there,” he said.</p>

<p>Experts say that omission represents a logical response from management to the incentives at play. Investors reward companies that produce growth in their return on assets. Limiting goods in warehouses improves that ratio.</p>

<p>“To the extent you can keep reducing inventory, your books look good,” said ManMohan S. Sodhi, a supply chain expert at the City, University of London Business School.</p>

<p>From 1981 to 2000, American companies reduced their inventories by an average of 2% a year, according to one study. These savings helped finance another shareholder-enriching trend — the growth of share buybacks.</p>

<p>In the decade leading up to the pandemic, American companies spent more than $6 trillion to buy their own shares, roughly tripling their purchases, according to a study by the Bank for International Settlements. Companies in Japan, Britain, France, Canada and China increased their buybacks fourfold, though their purchases were a fraction of their American counterparts.</p>

<p>Repurchasing stock reduces the number of shares in circulation, lifting their value. But the benefits for investors and executives, whose pay packages include hefty allocations of stock, have come at the expense of whatever the company might have otherwise done with its money — investing to expand capacity, or stockpiling parts.</p>

<p>These costs became conspicuous during the first wave of the pandemic when major economies including the United States discovered that they lacked capacity to quickly make ventilators.</p>

<p>“When you need a ventilator, you need a ventilator,” Sodhi said. “You can’t say, ‘Well, my stock price is high.’ ”</p>

<p>When the pandemic began, car manufacturers slashed orders for chips on the expectation that demand for cars would plunge. By the time they realized that demand was reviving, it was too late: Ramping up production of computer chips requires months.</p>

<p>“The impact to production will get worse before it gets better,” said Jim Farley, chief executive of Ford, which has long embraced lean manufacturing, speaking to stock analysts on April 28. The company said the shortages would probably derail half of its production through June.</p>

<p>The automaker least affected by the shortage is Toyota. From the inception of Just in Time, Toyota relied on suppliers clustered close to its base in Japan, making the company less susceptible to events far away.</p>

<p><strong>‘It all cascades’</strong></p>

<p>In Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, Romano is literally waiting for his ship to come in.</p>

<p>He is vice president of sales at Van Horn, Metz &amp; Co., which buys chemicals from suppliers around the world and sells them to factories that make paint, ink and other industrial products.</p>

<p>In normal times, the company is behind in filling perhaps 1% of its customers’ orders. On a recent morning, it could not complete a tenth of its orders because it was waiting for supplies to arrive.</p>

<p>The company could not secure enough of a specialized resin that it sells to manufacturers that make construction materials. The American supplier of the resin was itself lacking one element that it purchases from a petrochemical plant in China.</p>

<p>One of Romano’s regular customers, a paint manufacturer, was holding off on ordering chemicals because it could not locate enough of the metal cans it uses to ship its finished product.</p>

<p>“It all cascades,” Romano said. “It’s just a mess.”</p>

<p>No pandemic was required to reveal the risks of overreliance on Just In Time combined with global supply chains. Experts have warned about the consequences for decades.</p>

<p>In 1999, an earthquake shook Taiwan, shutting down computer chip manufacturing. The earthquake and tsunami that shattered Japan in 2011 shut down factories and impeded shipping, generating shortages of auto parts and computer chips. Floods in Thailand the same year decimated production of computer hard drives.</p>

<p>Each disaster prompted talk that companies needed to boost their inventories and diversify their suppliers.</p>

<p>Each time, multinational companies carried on.</p>

<p>The same consultants who promoted the virtues of lean inventories now evangelize about supply chain resilience — the buzzword of the moment.</p>

<p>Simply expanding warehouses may not provide the fix, said Richard Lebovitz, president of LeanDNA, a supply chain consultant based in Austin, Texas. Product lines are increasingly customized.</p>

<p>“The ability to predict what inventory you should keep is harder and harder,” he said.</p>

<p>Ultimately, business is likely to further its embrace of lean for the simple reason that it has yielded profits.</p>

<p>“The real question is, ‘Are we going to stop chasing low cost as the sole criteria for business judgment?’” said Shih, from Harvard Business School. “I’m sceptical of that. Consumers won’t pay for resilience when they are not in crisis.”</p>


In the story of how the modern world was constructed, Toyota stands out as the mastermind of a monumental advance in industrial efficiency. The Japanese automaker pioneered so-called Just In Time manufacturing, in which parts are delivered to factories right as they are required, minimizing the need to stockpile them.

In the story of how the modern world was constructed, Toyota stands out as the mastermind of a monumental advance in industrial efficiency. The Japanese automaker pioneered so-called Just In Time manufacturing, in which parts are delivered to factories right as they are required, minimizing the need to stockpile them. Over the past half-century, this approach has captivated global business in industries far beyond autos. From fashion to food processing to pharmaceuticals, companies have embraced Just In Time to stay nimble, allowing them to adapt to changing market demands, while cutting costs. But the tumultuous events of the past year have challenged the merits of paring inventories, while reinvigorating concerns that some industries have gone too far, leaving them vulnerable to disruption. As the pandemic has hampered factory operations and sown chaos in global shipping, many economies around the world have been bedeviled by shortages of a vast range of goods — from electronics to lumber to clothing. In a time of extraordinary upheaval in the global economy, Just In Time is running late. “It’s sort of like supply chain run amok,” said Willy C. Shih, an international trade expert at Harvard Business School. “In a race to get to the lowest cost, I have concentrated my risk. We are at the logical conclusion of all that.” The most prominent manifestation of too much reliance on Just in Time is found in the very industry that invented it: Automakers have been crippled by a shortage of computer chips — vital car components produced mostly in Asia. Without enough chips on hand, auto factories from India to the United States to Brazil have been forced to halt assembly lines. But the breadth and persistence of the shortages reveal the extent to which the Just in Time idea has come to dominate commercial life. This helps explain why Nike and other apparel brands struggle to stock retail outlets with their wares. It’s one of the reasons construction companies are having trouble purchasing paints and sealants. It was a principal contributor to the tragic shortages of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic, which left frontline medical workers without adequate gear. Just In Time has amounted to no less than a revolution in the business world. By keeping inventories thin, major retailers have been able to use more of their space to display a wider array of goods. Just In Time has enabled manufacturers to customize their wares. And lean production has significantly cut costs while allowing companies to pivot quickly to new products. These virtues have added value to companies, spurred innovation and promoted trade, ensuring that Just In Time will retain its force long after the current crisis abates. The approach has also enriched shareholders by generating savings that companies have distributed in the form of dividends and share buybacks. Still, the shortages raise questions about whether some companies have been too aggressive in harvesting savings by slashing inventory, leaving them unprepared for whatever trouble inevitably emerges. “It’s the investments that they don’t make,” said William Lazonick, an economist at the University of Massachusetts. Intel, the American chipmaker, has outlined plans to spend $20 billion to erect new plants in Arizona. But that is less than the $26 billion that Intel spent on share buybacks in 2018 and 2019 — money the company could have used to expand capacity, Lazonick said. Some experts assume that the crisis will change the way companies operate, prompting some to stockpile more inventory and forge relationships with extra suppliers as a hedge against problems. But others are dubious, assuming that — same as after past crises — the pursuit of cost savings will again trump other considerations. Chaos on the Seas The shortages in the world economy stem from factors beyond lean inventories. The spread of COVID-19 has sidelined port workers and truck drivers, impeding the unloading and distribution of goods made at factories in Asia and arriving by ship to North America and Europe. The pandemic has slowed sawmill operations, causing a shortage of lumber that has stymied home building in the United States. Winter storms that shut down petrochemical plants in the Gulf of Mexico have left key products in short supply. Andrew Romano, who runs sales at a chemical company outside Philadelphia, has grown accustomed to telling customers they must wait on their orders. “You have a confluence of forces,” he said. “It just ripples through the supply.” Dramatic increases in demand made pet food scarce and Grape-Nuts cereal all but disappear from American store shelves for a time. Some companies were especially exposed to such forces given that they were already running lean as the crisis began. And many businesses have combined a dedication to Just In Time with a reliance on suppliers in low-wage countries like China and India, making any disruption to global shipping an immediate problem. That has amplified the damage when something goes awry — as when an enormous vessel lodged in the Suez Canal this year, closing the primary channel linking Europe and Asia. “People adopted that kind of lean mentality, and then they applied it to supply chains with the assumption that they would have low-cost and reliable shipping,” said Shih, the Harvard Business School trade expert. “Then, you have some shocks to the system.” An idea that went ‘way too far’ Just In Time was itself an adaptation to turmoil, as Japan mobilized to recover from the devastation of World War II. Densely populated and lacking in natural resources, Japan sought to conserve land and limit waste. Toyota eschewed warehousing, while choreographing production with suppliers to ensure that parts arrived when needed. By the 1980s, companies around the globe were emulating Toyota’s production system. Management experts promoted Just In Time as a way to boost profits. “Companies that run successful lean programs not only save money in warehouse operations but enjoy more flexibility,” declared a 2010 McKinsey presentation for the pharmaceutical industry. It promised savings of up to 50% on warehousing if clients embraced its “lean and mean” approach to supply chains. Such claims have panned out. Still, one of the authors of that presentation, Knut Alicke, a McKinsey partner based in Germany, now says the corporate world exceeded prudence. “We went way too far,” Alicke said. “The way that inventory is evaluated will change after the crisis.” Many companies acted as if manufacturing and shipping were devoid of mishaps, Alicke added, while failing to account for trouble in their business plans. “There’s no kind of disruption risk term in there,” he said. Experts say that omission represents a logical response from management to the incentives at play. Investors reward companies that produce growth in their return on assets. Limiting goods in warehouses improves that ratio. “To the extent you can keep reducing inventory, your books look good,” said ManMohan S. Sodhi, a supply chain expert at the City, University of London Business School. From 1981 to 2000, American companies reduced their inventories by an average of 2% a year, according to one study. These savings helped finance another shareholder-enriching trend — the growth of share buybacks. In the decade leading up to the pandemic, American companies spent more than $6 trillion to buy their own shares, roughly tripling their purchases, according to a study by the Bank for International Settlements. Companies in Japan, Britain, France, Canada and China increased their buybacks fourfold, though their purchases were a fraction of their American counterparts. Repurchasing stock reduces the number of shares in circulation, lifting their value. But the benefits for investors and executives, whose pay packages include hefty allocations of stock, have come at the expense of whatever the company might have otherwise done with its money — investing to expand capacity, or stockpiling parts. These costs became conspicuous during the first wave of the pandemic when major economies including the United States discovered that they lacked capacity to quickly make ventilators. “When you need a ventilator, you need a ventilator,” Sodhi said. “You can’t say, ‘Well, my stock price is high.’ ” When the pandemic began, car manufacturers slashed orders for chips on the expectation that demand for cars would plunge. By the time they realized that demand was reviving, it was too late: Ramping up production of computer chips requires months. “The impact to production will get worse before it gets better,” said Jim Farley, chief executive of Ford, which has long embraced lean manufacturing, speaking to stock analysts on April 28. The company said the shortages would probably derail half of its production through June. The automaker least affected by the shortage is Toyota. From the inception of Just in Time, Toyota relied on suppliers clustered close to its base in Japan, making the company less susceptible to events far away. ‘It all cascades’ In Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, Romano is literally waiting for his ship to come in. He is vice president of sales at Van Horn, Metz & Co., which buys chemicals from suppliers around the world and sells them to factories that make paint, ink and other industrial products. In normal times, the company is behind in filling perhaps 1% of its customers’ orders. On a recent morning, it could not complete a tenth of its orders because it was waiting for supplies to arrive. The company could not secure enough of a specialized resin that it sells to manufacturers that make construction materials. The American supplier of the resin was itself lacking one element that it purchases from a petrochemical plant in China. One of Romano’s regular customers, a paint manufacturer, was holding off on ordering chemicals because it could not locate enough of the metal cans it uses to ship its finished product. “It all cascades,” Romano said. “It’s just a mess.” No pandemic was required to reveal the risks of overreliance on Just In Time combined with global supply chains. Experts have warned about the consequences for decades. In 1999, an earthquake shook Taiwan, shutting down computer chip manufacturing. The earthquake and tsunami that shattered Japan in 2011 shut down factories and impeded shipping, generating shortages of auto parts and computer chips. Floods in Thailand the same year decimated production of computer hard drives. Each disaster prompted talk that companies needed to boost their inventories and diversify their suppliers. Each time, multinational companies carried on. The same consultants who promoted the virtues of lean inventories now evangelize about supply chain resilience — the buzzword of the moment. Simply expanding warehouses may not provide the fix, said Richard Lebovitz, president of LeanDNA, a supply chain consultant based in Austin, Texas. Product lines are increasingly customized. “The ability to predict what inventory you should keep is harder and harder,” he said. Ultimately, business is likely to further its embrace of lean for the simple reason that it has yielded profits. “The real question is, ‘Are we going to stop chasing low cost as the sole criteria for business judgment?’” said Shih, from Harvard Business School. “I’m sceptical of that. Consumers won’t pay for resilience when they are not in crisis.”

How the world ran out of everything

She created a storm in India a few months and was instrumental in bringing the #MeToo movement to India and now Tanushree Dutta is creating impact outside the country.

She created a storm in India a few months and was instrumental in bringing the #MeToo movement to India and now Tanushree Dutta is creating impact outside the country. Dutta recently went to the prestigious Harvard Business School as a guest speaker at the India conference which is organized by the students of the business school. Tanushree's session was moderated by journalist Pankaj Pachauri. A clip of the session has been doing the rounds of social media for some time now which has Pachauri mentioning the global #Metoo Movement and India's obsession with fair skin. View this post on Instagram Tanushree Dutta at Discussion Harvard India conference . . For more updates follow @peeping.moon . . #tanushreedutta @iamtanushreeduttaofficial #actress #bollywood #harward #peepingmoon #peepingmoonbollywood A post shared by PeepingMoon (@peeping.moon) on Feb 20, 2019 at 8:43pm PST × Earlier in an interview with a news agency. Tanushree has said, "I’m quite excited as it will be a new kind of experience as my audience will be quintessentially American. I’m also a bit nervous as everyone else on the platform is highly accomplished and experienced so, I hope I hold up well.” The actress also shared photos of her stay at the business school. View this post on Instagram Interview discussion on emerging technology on campus @Harvard Business School shot by #nrilifeproductions in collaboration with @gunjankuthiala @deepsclicksphotography @getarup26 A post shared by Tanushree Dutta (@iamtanushreeduttaofficial) on Feb 20, 2019 at 9:36pm PST × View this post on Instagram Brunch at Harvard with @gunjankuthiala iala and @alina_dar_ shooting a panel discussion for social media with #nrilife productions. At the Grille cafetaria HBS. A post shared by Tanushree Dutta (@iamtanushreeduttaofficial) on Feb 19, 2019 at 11:07am PST × In 2018, Tanushree accused Nana Patekar of sexual misconduct on the sets of 'Horn Ok Pleasss' back in 2008. The episode eventually led more women from various industries speaking out against sexual offenders. Powerful people like Rajkumar Hirani, Alok Nath, Sajid Khan, Rajat Kapoor, Anu Malik, Vikas Behl, and journalist MJ Akbar were accused by women of sexual misconduct.

Tanushree Dutta visits Harvard Business School as a guest speaker