To integrate or not to integrate?

To integrate or not to integrate? A Ten Year Study Of Australian Businesses

2

3

Executive Summary

CONTENTS Executive Summary

2

The Situation

4

Tapping Into Trends

6

Changes in Implementation Over Time

8

Delving Deeper

10

Looking Ahead

14

What characterises an integrated supply chain? Do managers pursuing integration really take a holistic view of the supply chain? What’s the difference between a company seeking integration of the supply chain and those who are not? And what about those businesses whose supply chains disintegrate over time? The answers to these questions were pursued by a research project conducted by the Department of Management and Marketing in the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Melbourne, jointly funded by the Australian Research Council and GS1 Australia. As part of “Project Noah”, the study surveyed Australian businesses across a range of industries over a period of ten years between 2001 and 2011. A number of companies that displayed a change were then chosen for in-depth interviews. The study focuses on supply chain integration, or “inter-organisational systems (IOS)”, through the use of standards based technologies. It looks at the extent to which businesses implement IOS technologies and standards, and how this changes over the ten year period. The case studies delve further, providing the much needed reasons and explanations behind the data. The survey reveals that there is an association between businesses who implement more IOS technologies based on GS1 standards and better business performance over the ten year period. More specifically, businesses who indicate higher levels of growth and business benefits both at the operational and financial levels timplement IOS more extensively.

Definition of IOS ”Interorganisational systems (IOS) are automated information systems shared by two or more companies, such as Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR).” Cash and Konsynski, 1985

At the same time, this did not translate to more extensive implementation of IOS across the supply chain for the broader sample. Results show that businesses increase and decrease usage of the technologies over time, with increases being only marginal for the full sample. So why, if there is evidence supporting the benefits of IOS, do companies usually fail to implement it more extensively? As the case studies show, when it comes to IOS, it is not a simple case of ‘one size fits all’. Implementations of IOS often lack cohesion, strategy and forward thinking. Instead, managers focus on local, short-term business benefits for their own organisation, rather than on strategic supply chain integration. The case study businesses are united by their need to customise the use of standards based IOS, resulting in fragmented and hybrid implementation. Standards based technologies are therefore often implemented in nonstandard ways. Importantly, however, the results indicate that a more integrated supply chain is not necessarily in the best interest of all businesses. As a result, the success of a businesses’ IOS implementation lies in their ability to correctly identify the best technology and standards for their strategic goals, both in the short-term and the long-term. GS1 Australia continues to have an important role to play in helping organisations understand, find and implement the right standards for maximum efficiency and return on investment.

What is Project Noah? Project Noah is a research partnership between the Department of Management and Marketing in the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Melbourne and GS1 Australia which seeks to discover the factors influencing the adoption of new supply chain technology measures, such as barcodes, eMessaging, radio frequency identification and data synchronisation.

4

5

The Situation

Over the past ten years, we have witnessed several transformations taking place in business, across every industry. The virtualisation of physical infrastructure, the rise of the Internet, lower staff retention rates, and increased globalisation of business; these are just some of the changes that have impacted the supply chain, directly or indirectly. On the one hand, information technology and globalisation are demanding a change in companies towards improved collaboration, especially in the supply chain. Many businesses are increasingly drawn to the competitive opportunities available through a more effective and efficient supply chain network. The development of technologies has transcended traditional boundaries to automate and integrate supply chain functions between trading partners, such as electronic data interchange (EDI). With the potential to provide informationsharing benefits in an inter-organisational setting, EDI has attracted much attention from businesses in the retail industry in particular. According to the study by IBM titled Make your supply chain more efficient by using GS1 Global Standards (2011), “The continued volatility and uncertainty of today’s economic environment and the complexities of an increasingly global supply chain are demanding enhanced supply chain visibility and more widespread adoption of standards and guidelines to help improve collaboration and coordination.” On the other hand, there is the powerful force of economics causing many businesses to behave in a more introverted manner, with their processes and operations demonstrating this. In 2011, at the height of the global economic crisis, companies faced a very different set of business challenges than they did ten years previously. Add to that the rising pressure and complexities from global competition and consumer expectations and it is no surprise businesses have refocused their goals. The dynamic job market means employees are now less likely to look years down the track with one company than they were ten years ago. Fulfilling individual key performance indicators takes priority over long-term strategies. The nature of jobs has also changed. In 2001 it was protocol to have a technology standards officer, whereas today this role is nearly non-existent. As a result, the conundrum many Australian businesses are facing is finding a balance that meets the technological and global forces as well as their economic business goals.

*The estimated resident population of Australia at June 30 2003 was 19,880,600 and at May 30 2013 was 23,038,280, an increase of 16% *The Australian retail trade turnover in volume terms in the month of March 2003 was $41,627,500 and in the month of March 2013 was $65,287,100, an increase of 57% *Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

Inter-organisational systems and their role in integrating supply chain partners The use of inter-organisational systems (IOS) can lead to more integrated supply chains. Over the last ten years this has become an increasingly important issue for businesses. IOS comprise the tools, usually technology, and data that are shared across businesses and implemented to achieve supply chain integration through better collaboration. Collaboration is a vital component of integrated supply chains; each company in the supply chain is required to work together on the integration of processes, information exchange and joint supply chain management. The desired result for all parties is better efficiency up and down the supply chain. GS1 Australia administers a number of global IOS standards to improve supply chain management and the integration between trading partners. GS1 Australia is a not-for-profit organisation and part of GS1 Global Inc, a group of organisations with over 1.5 million member companies in 111 countries. GS1 Australia’s Chief Information Officer, Steven Pereira, says businesses need a common set of data standards so they can drive intelligence from a strong foundation. “We live in an increasingly smart planet where everything is instrumented, interconnected and intelligent. GS1 Australia has a fundamental role to play in the space, administering the standards and maximising the chances of doing things more effectively,” says Mr Pereira.

The IOS standards administered by GS1 are key technologies to facilitate the transfer of data between trading partners in a supply network. They include standards relating to barcodes, product identification, EDI, extensible markup language (XML), radio-frequency identification (RFID), and data synchronisation (GS1net). Between 2001 and 2011, the role of GS1 has evolved. It proactively collaborates with industry groups to further the development and adoption of supply chain standards, while working with individual businesses to help them implement the right standards and technologies in their own supply chain, including IOS. What is intriguing about IOS is the extent of implementation. With increasing attention on the benefits to the supply chain, we would expect there to be an increase in implementation over a ten year period. Previous studies have shown that consumer product retailers and wholesalers display implementation rates that are, on average, higher than those of manufacturers (IBM study). We also know that some manufacturers have no choice when it comes to implementing specific IOS standards in order to trade with bigger retailers. What is unclear is whether they see additional value in implementing IOS or are simply answering retailers’ demands. What are the changes in how organisations have implemented IOS over time, though? Why do these changes occur? What are the factors causing companies to progress with or shy away from IOS? These are the questions Project Noah looks to answer.

6

7

Tapping Into Trends

Survey methodology

Part 1: Ten year survey

The goals of Project Noah were clear: first it needed to gather the data on the extent to which businesses implement IOS and how this changes over time. Then it needed to delve into the mindsets of the executives responsible for IOS implementation, and find out exactly what drives them and hinders them.

In 2001, Australian businesses of all sizes across a range of sectors were invited to participate in two interconnected surveys looking at their implementation of IOS. The target businesses were randomly selected from within the GS1 membership base from those members that were already doing some aspect of electronic commerce. The surveys measured the extent to which businesses implement a number of global IOS standards administered by GS1 Australia. The GS1 standards provided a solid base for comparison, given their stability over a ten year period.

In 2001, a Monash University research team, with the support of GS1 Australia, set out to answer three key questions about the implementation of IOS: 1. D o measurable changes in the implementation of standards based IOS occur over time? 2. Why do such changes occur? 3. D o characteristic differences exist between businesses moving towards more or less implementation of IOS over time? To achieve this, the study was divided into two parts. The first part aimed to answer question one and comprised a quantitative survey conducted in 2001 and replicated in 2011. A series of in-depth case studies explored questions two and three.

Analysis of the responses identified three levels of implementation – low, medium and high. The extent of IOS implementation was measured directly through nine questions derived from these definitions. Responses were received from 553 businesses. It should be highlighted that, at this time, technology itself was more expensive and organisations were typically not connected online as is the case today. The same surveys were conducted in 2011 within a sample of the original respondent organisations, resulting in 62 businesses who responded to both surveys. Over the 10 years, many of the original respondents had ceased to trade or been acquired or transformed into different business models. Moreover, contacts within the organisations had certainly changed roles or moved on. The 62 responses enabled the research team to quantify the changes in the implementation of GS1 standards based IOS over the ten year period.

IMPLEMENTER DEFINITIONS • Reactive (low implementer) The lowest level of implementation, purely satisfying a request from a trading partner. Generally restricted to applying barcodes to finished goods, with some EDI transactions included. Considered as just adding cost to the business. • Tactical (medium implementer) Seeks to extend implementation to specific processes within the business to improve efficiencies in, for example, production or inventory control. With adequate planning, costing and definition of the project, real cost savings are achievable. • Strategic (high implementer) Seeks to introduce integrated supply chain management techniques across the entire supply chain in a planned, staged manner. The first step usually introduces elements of the GS1 System within the initiator’s business, with a long-term project expected to deliver significant savings and other business benefits.

Part 2: Delving further The 62 businesses were classified into two groups: those increasing their implementation of standards based IOS over time (referred to as ‘Progressive’ businesses) and those decreasing (‘Retro’ businesses). Fifteen case studies were conducted using interviews and site visits and four businesses were selected from each group for further indepth analysis, enabling the team to explore the rationale behind the data. All eight businesses were manufacturers representing different industries, including food and drink, farming, sports apparel, merchandising, and electronics.

8

Changes In Implementation Over Time

9

Survey Results

Moving backwards and forwards

Are you strategic?

Do measurable changes in IOS implementation take place over time? The short answer is yes, but not in the way we would expect. Businesses move both backwards and forwards in their implementation over the ten year period.

The study provides evidence of churn over time in terms of the extent of implementation. The results show that the proportion of businesses classified as Reactive (low) implementers has been reduced over the ten year period from 71 per cent to 60 per cent. However, it is also noticeable that 15 per cent of businesses reduced their level of implementation, with four businesses moving from the Tactical (medium) to Reactive group and five businesses moving from the Strategic (high) to Tactical group. This ‘retro’ effect can be explained to some degree by the trend of IOS and eCommerce implementations becoming business as usual (BAU) rather than any strategic imperative.

The study allows us to look more closely at what it means to be a high implementer of standards based IOS technology. Businesses in the Strategic group in 2011 demonstrate a number of the same behaviours:

We know IOS is an important tool to integrate processes and systems with supply chain partners, however, rather than gradually increasing their implementation of IOS over time, Project Noah reveals that integration does not happen in a staged, linear fashion. More surprising, perhaps, organisations do not set out to achieve more integration over time.

Business benefits of IOS Over the ten year period, there is a positive relationship recorded between business performance and the extent of IOS implementation based on GS1 standards. The findings indicate that these technologies are associated with improved business performance both at the operational and financial levels.

Businesses who implement IOS more extensively – the Strategic group – indicate higher levels of growth in business size and revenue while the Reactive and Tactical groups remain static on both dimensions.

Further, while the Strategic group has increased over the time period, only 20 per cent of the businesses comprising the Strategic group in 2011 were Strategic implementers in 2001. This means that 80 per cent of the Strategic group from 2001 moved to lower levels of implementation. Conversely, the Reactive group was the most stable over the ten year period, with 33 of the 44 businesses maintaining their position. It appears, then, that while implementation offers tangible business benefits, this does not necessarily translate into more extensive implementation generally. In fact, while 40 per cent of businesses changed their use of the technologies over time, only 25 per cent of these increased their implementation.

2001 GS1 Standards Based Technologies

11% 18%

• A strong long-term planning focus and a consistent appreciation of the importance of IOS implementation to their business.

71%

• A significant increase in emphasis over the ten year period on the importance of costing, developing a business case and planning. • A significant increase over this same time period in understanding of technical, strategic and operational implications of IOS implementation. • A significant increase over time in collaboration with trading partners – in particular with customers. In contrast, the Tactical and Reactive groups – comprising 84 per cent of the sample – exhibit either little change or a reduction in emphasis on these behaviours. There are only two standards based IOS technologies where significant changes in usage were recorded – EDI and Serial Shipping Container Codes (SSCCs). For SSCCs in particular, we know that retailers during this ten year period pushed their suppliers to implement this standard across the goods delivery process in order to continue trading with them. This is strong supporting evidence that customer compliance remains a significant driver of businesses’ IOS adoptions.

Very Large Extent

5 4

2011 GS1 Standards Based Technologies

16% 60%

24%

Figure 1. Comparison of IOS implementation across Reactive, Tactical and Strategic Groups over a ten year period.

Consistent long-term planning focus Significant increase

Significant increase

Reactive

3

Tactical

2 Not At All

1

Significant decrease

2001

2011

Planned & Costed

2001

Strategic

2011

Long Term Planning

2001

2011

Business Case/Project Plans

2001

2011

SC Evaluation

Barcodes - Logistics Applications Figure 2. Comparison of behaviours and changes in usage of IOS implementation across Reactive, Tactical and Strategic Groups over a ten year period.

10

11

Delving Deeper

Case studies Operational factors, pressures from powerful customers, cost, time, business issues; the list of reasons for adopting and discarding IOS is common amongst businesses. A complex interplay of these factors within a business causes the extent and manner of IOS implementation to vary over time. The survey data revealed many interesting trends in the changes of IOS implementation over time. But it is the case study interviews that explore the reasoning, attitudes and factors behind these changes. We see businesses struggling to reconcile the perceived benefits of IOS with the real-world problems in adopting and implementing the technologies. The result is a somewhat different model of IOS implementation from those outlined in the text books where the distribution paradigm for businesses is a 100 per cent hub-and-spoke rollout starting with their top ten by volume and continuing until they have achieved saturation. Our results today, however, point to a model that some would argue is not a model in its truest sense, but instead an ad hoc approach mainly aimed to benefit the individual business, rather than the supply chain as a whole.

“Who knows [where IOS technology is headed]? If you’re not in the field of technology you never really know until you’re pushed that way.”

Factors influencing IOS adoption over time Many factors play a role in determining changes in businesses’ adoption and diffusion of IOS over time. A single business can be influenced by one or many of these factors throughout the ten year period. Take operational factors. Businesses that increased their implementation of IOS – “Progressive” businesses – were influenced by IOS’s capability to lower transaction costs and result in more efficient inventory management and automated business processes. On the other hand, businesses that went the other way and decreased their IOS implementation – “Retro” businesses – were influenced by IOS’s role in increasing transaction costs and the limitations in the functionality of IOS that undermines its ability to meet operational goals. Other inhibiting factors are the speed of change regarding technology itself, and the need for flexibility to cater for individual relationship requirements. The same businesses are under institutional pressure to adopt IOS, often stemming from large, powerful customers. This is related to a different factor – business size. Large and powerful customers often coerce their smaller trading partners to adopt IOS standards. The role of environmental and economic change also has a significant impact on IOS implementation. This refers to the changes in the physical, social or economic factors that are not in direct control of an organisation. Despite having the best intentions, some businesses referred to the “GFC”, “staff reallocations and businesses shutting down” as reasons for why they couldn’t quite manage to get IOS off the ground. The adoption, diffusion and discarding of IOS is a result of the interplay between these factors over the ten year period. One logistics manager summed it up when he explained how the business was subject to institutional pressures, which led to the adoption of more IOS only to then realise that it could not deal with the associated IOS costs, leading it to change to less implementation of IOS between 2001 and 2011. Sitting amongst these factors are the attitudes of the business owners and supply chain managers regarding IOS. And when it comes to the decisions on what does and doesn’t get implemented, these attitudes can have the greatest influence of all.

“I think there’s sort of two drivers, there is certainly a push by trading partners, bigger trading partners, for them to become more efficient and they push that down the line.” “There’s been no appetite for it [EDI] from many of our smaller customers ... I think to be honest it’s a lot of waiting to see what our main customers are going to do and piggy back…” What’s the current situation?

Looking after number one

Interestingly, the managers interviewed do not perceive the steady increase of implementation over time as being in their businesses best interest. Instead, the problems they associate with IOS implementation mean they pursue business-based customised IOS solutions in order to overcome these problems to pursue their businesses objectives. This is supported by the quantitative survey, which showed it is not a cut-and-dry case of businesses gradually implementing more IOS over time. In fact, the more usual scenario was that implementation was situation specific, with managers not wanting to overcommit to IOS technology given the number of factors that could render their investments redundant. Again, constant technology change creates a cost burden on the organisation to remain current, let alone get ahead of the curve.

Managers from both the Progressive and Retro businesses agree on one key point: first and foremost, they want to leverage IOS to improve supply chain efficiency to generate positive effects within their individual businesses.

In many cases, businesses indicate that being selective and strategic in the use and focus of these technologies was more practical and yielded better results than simply adopting more IOS. Some businesses pick and choose the IOS technologies for certain problem areas, rather than taking on IOS as a whole. This ‘situational model’ was common across the sample.

Supply chain executives and managers had little interest in forming a close network with retailers and suppliers to create the best outcome for the whole supply chain. Rather, the interviews revealed that businesses adopt IOS strategies opportunistically, with little regard for their impact on the supply chain as a whole. Taken to the extreme, the results indicate that perhaps nothing happens unless it is driven from within by an organisation’s own particular key performance indicators (KPIs) and ROI. If companies are bigger IOS adopters (Progressives), they presumably did so because they foresaw a larger ROI. It follows, then, that Retro companies adopt less IOS because they do not see a big enough ROI and are therefore less enthusiastic about the benefits. Alternatively, the ROI is seen as relative to the ROI of other initiatives; therefore while IOS might be number five on the implementation list, it may always remain number five as other ‘more critical’ items with larger ROIs are pursued. By companies simply asking “What’s in it for me?” before implementing IOS, this raises the serious question of how the supply chain is impacted in the longer term.

12 What’s the problem? In the interviews, both the Progressive and Retro businesses highlighted challenges that were constraining their implementation of IOS. In some cases, organisations pursued business-based IOS strategies to overcome these problems and ensure their businesses success. In others, the problems prevented them going any further or led to them discarding IOS. Three challenges were consistently cited by both types of businesses: dysfunctional collaboration and information exchange, costs of adoption and compliance, and supply chain complexity. Let’s look at these in more detail.

Dysfunctional collaboration and information exchange: The struggle to collaborate with partners, especially downstream, is an obstacle to implementation. Executives express frustrations about having no choice in the way the supply chain is managed. Rather, many businesses are obliged to adopt technology prescribed by a few powerful retailers, which only serves to exacerbate problems with collaboration among multiple trading partners. On the other hand, they need to deal with smaller retailers who have very different levels of technical expertise and requirements. Even the businesses that implemented more IOS over time are not necessarily more integrated when it comes to dealing with trading partners.

Costs of adoption and compliance with IOS standards: The costs of technology, expended time and effort were perceived as prohibitive by most businesses, regardless of whether their turnover was one million dollars or several billion. The complex nature of many different IOS systems only served to impede implementation further. One business went so far as to say, “Trying to do business with your Retailer X and your Retailer Y and Retailer Z and all the rest of them, it’s too hard, it is just too hard, the cost of compliance with their systems is too much of a burden.” One manager recognised that EDI barcode integration is important, but pointed to the friction it causes within his business, “as in it slows down the processing of orders and things.”

13 “Despite businesses’ significant investment in advanced IOS, truly integrated, collaborative supply chains remain an elusive goal.” “What we find, getting back to the difficulties of retailers, they just dictate to you, what is going to be and there’s no dialogue with them about how well or otherwise it can work.” “The style of packaging that they insisted on [to adopt IOS system elements such as barcodes] was impossible because our problem is that a lot of our products are 20 cent items, 40 cent items, and they want it in secure packaging and so the packaging all of a sudden is 300% of the cost of the item.”

Part one of the study showed that customers, typically large retailers, seem to benefit much more from increases in the implementation of IOS than manufacturers – often by shifting activities and costs to the manufacturers. The challenge facing manufacturers across the board remains to be how to reconcile these costs with the promised benefits of IOS.

Supply chain complexity: Supply chains are increasingly global and complex as companies aspire to support a variety of strategies, such as entering new markets, lowering costs, and offering customers more product variety. The sheer number of trading partners and their differences in nature is regarded as a major hurdle to the implementation of IOS. Further still, in a world where consumer choice is paramount, the number of product variants is a significant factor adding to overall supply chain complexity.

Piecing it all together There is no doubting the interviews highlighted a disjointed, discontinuous and even opportunistic approach across all groups. However, two common types of IOS strategies were also revealed – fragmented and hybrid. The fragmented implementation means manufacturers operate mixed communication systems. IOS is used with their large suppliers and customers, while more traditional media, such as phone and e-mail, is used with smaller trading partners. Similarly, the hybrid model sees businesses attempt to compile and combine IOS with human intervention and other means of communication. The hybrid mix of technologies and human sub-systems was common amongst the case businesses and seen as a necessary approach to deal with increasingly complex supply chains. For example, manufacturers with many small customers, that cannot afford IOS and submit their orders over the phone, must use manpower to process and enter an order into an IOS.

“…it’s really only Retailer X that we use EDI with because they demand it.” “We’re not really ready to integrate his system with our system because I don’t have a way to integrate a thousand different retail systems with my back end.” “Most of them, you know, after 24,000 independent customers, most of them, are local bottle shops that will ring you up and place their orders.” “We took the barcodes off deliberately for that product to make sure it never gets sold retail and it’s as I said it’s just sold through the mini-bars in some of the major hotels around the world.”

14

Looking Ahead

As companies continue to grapple with the challenges of globalisation, virtualisation, and increasingly complex supply chains, it is more important than ever to have a flexible and nimble supply chain that can work for the best of all concerned. The study has shown that when it comes to IOS, it is not a case of “one-size fits all”. Most businesses exhibit opportunistic IOS behaviour with self-interest and their businesses’ survival being more important than deliberate planning to increase overall efficiencies in the supply chain. Trading partner collaboration is pursued on a case-by-case basis; the complexity of business operations, with multiple products, trading partners and markets mitigates a holistic approach. In some cases, collaboration is not an option at all and a business simply follows the mandate from powerful customers. Standards based technologies are therefore often implemented in non-standard ways.

15

It is a critical time for business owners and supply chain managers to leverage IOS and the related standards not only to create flexibility and keep costs down in the short term, but also to ensure there is a long-term strategy that works towards the business goals.

About The University Of Melbourne

Moving forward, managers must be able to identify and implement the systems and technologies that best suit their strategic objectives. This approach will allow them to make informed decisions regarding which IOS to adopt and which to discard. In particular, managers need to look beyond the notion of a best practice model toward more situationspecific strategies, and be prepared to adjust these strategies when faced with a need to adapt over time. It only makes sense that they also interact with trading partners in order to achieve this. This includes supplier and retailers alike.

The University of Melbourne is a leading research-based institution, as consistently indicated by the Australian Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) rankings and leading international rankings and accreditations.

This raises the serious question, what about the IOS standards? GS1 standards have an important role to play in IOS. Businesses need to understand the standards are a constant factor in any IOS technology and have the capability to reduce cost through uniformity. When a business needs to customise IOS, it customises the different processes and implementation methods of IOS and the associated integration technologies – not the standard itself. GS1 continues to have an important role to play in helping organisations understand, find and implement the right standards for maximum efficiency and return on investment.

The University of Melbourne has been a leading centre of higher education and research in Australia for 160 years. Established in 1853, the University of Melbourne is a public-spirited institution that makes distinctive contributions to society in research, learning and teaching and engagement. It’s consistently ranked among the leading universities in the world, with international rankings of world universities placing it as number 1 in Australia and number 28 in the world (Times Higher Education World University rankings 2012-213).

The strategic focus of the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Melbourne is to foster a community of world class researchers to conduct research and provide research training that firmly establishes a global top 25 ranking in each of its disciplines. Be it in accountancy, actuarial studies, economics, finance, leadership, management, marketing and social policy, the Faculty engages in research that drives a deeper understanding of the challenges and issues that confront economies and societies worldwide.

About Gs1 Australia GS1 Australia is the Australian member of GS1 Global, the largest supply chain not-for-profit organisation in the world which is driven by more than a million member companies. GS1 Australia is at the forefront of eCommerce and supply chain management initiatives, helping Australian businesses to adopt the world’s best practice supply chain management techniques and streamline their processes to enable fast, efficient and accurate flow of information between trading partners through automation. In consultation with industry, the team at GS1 Australia develops global, open, user-driven, multi-sector standards and helps businesses implement the GS1 standards to make businesses more efficient and drive costs out of the value chain. The GS1 standards are a global way to identify individual products, locations, services, assets, documents and more. By using standards in supply chain identification and communication, all trading partners speak the same ‘global language’ no matter where they are in the world and what IT system they use. GS1 Australia currently services 22 industry sectors and supports just under 17,000 members nationally.

16

GS1 is a registered trademark of GS1 AISBL

16

Head Office Axxess Corporate Park Unit 100/45 Gilby Rd Mt Waverley VIC 3149 Locked Bag 2 Mt Waverley VIC 3149 T +61 3 9558 9559 F +61 3 9558 9551

Sydney Office Lakes Business Park Building 4B, 2-4 Lord St Botany NSW 2019 Locked Bag 7002 Botany NSW 1455 T +61 2 9700 0933 F +61 2 9700 0820

1494_0813

National Number: 1300 BARCODE (1300 227 263) ABN: 67 005 529 920 www.gs1au.org