Category Archives: Cost Reduction

Supplier Innovation Can Bridge Finance and Suppliers, but Reverse Financing is Not Supplier Innovation!

Reverse factoring is definitely a finance innovation, especially when many finance departments still think squeezing the supplier on margin is a good thing, but it’s a buyer(-led) innovation (and one sophisticated buyers should be implementing). Needless to say I was hoping for more creative insights when I checked out this recent piece on Procurement Leaders that purported to be on “Supplier Innovation – A Bridge Between Finance and Suppliers”. Something on how the supplier’s involvement in NPD/NPI, process re-engineering, or product standardization efforts and its effect on finance would have definitely been preferred.

There are a large number of ways true supplier innovation can benefit finance which include, but are not limited to:

  • Production Process Redesign
    The supplier could utilize a solution such as aPriori‘s Enterprise Product Costing Platform with appropriately configured VPEs (Virtual Production Environments) to suggest alternate fabrication methods that could cut the cost of the part in half or more!
  • Material Substitution or Component Redesign
    Design locks in as much of 80% of the cost — maybe the supplier can identify alternate materials or design changes before the first part is produced that can deliver the same quality and reliability but yet reduce cost.
  • Deployment of Modern Punch-Out and Invoicing Solutions
    Nothing is more annoying then trying to integrate a supplier catalog that is still exported in an archaic FoxPro format on a weekly basis to an old-school FTP site into your modern e-Procurement platform or OCR and auto-correct invoices still delivered as fax into your modern invoice automation solution. A supplier that adopts state of the art CRM technology that plugs and plays with your system often does more for finance than anything you can do.
  • SaaS Information Management
    As per a recent Gartner study, a Billion Dollar company spends 1,000 hours every week managing suppliers and their information. This time is primarily spent on data entry and maintenance, contact requests for updated data, compliance monitoring, performance monitoring, accounts payable and invoice verification. At least one-quarter to one-half of this time is spent on supplier information management alone, which is the equivalent of 6 to 8 FTEs (Full Time Employees) for this one billion dollar company. A supplier that kept the information required by their buyers up-to-date in a central repository that could be easily accessed and read into standard Procurement SIM/SRM systems would be doing a big service to their customers and considerably decrease the buyer’s overhead costs, making the buyer’s finance department quite happy.
  • Fine-Grained Bid Information
    The buyer’s cost depends not only on what the supplier produces, but where it produces, what the inbound and outbound shipping costs are, and how much the supplier pays for raw materials. A supplier who provides fine-grained (should) cost data in detailed cost models helps the buyer decide what locations are most cost-effective for it, whether it should be buying raw materials on behalf of the supplier (and use its negotiating power), and who should be financing what for lowest overall supply chain cost.

These are just a few of the ways that suppliers can innovate a bridge between themselves and the buyer’s finance department. There are others. The point is, innovation is not limited to reverse factoring, which should not even be initiated by the supplier!

aPriori, rationi viam ad sumptus! Caput II

In yesterday’s post, we re-introduced you to aPriori, the masters of Enterprise Product Costing that have been working their cost reduction magic for a full decade, taking out mountains of cost before the first part is produced! We noted that, even though it’s been over half a decade, the masters of costing have stayed the course and are still focussed 100% on taking cost out during the design and production phases, where up to 80% of the cost of a product is locked in. They do this through complex process models, built on CAD geometry, that they embed in sophisticated VPEs (Virtual Production Environments) which are populated with accurate cost data for each material, machine, and overhead factor that contributes to the total production cost.

Today we want to highlight the major improvements made in the last five years.

Significantly More Production Process Models!

When SI first reviewed aPriori, their out-of-the-box capabilities were limited to metal-based parts only, and there were only a few dozen process models. Now they can handle virtually any metal and plastics component you can think of and support over two hundred production process models out of the box. In addition, they recently signed some very big name electronics manufacturers and are adding electronics process models to their repertoire, and a few of these will likely be available out-of-the-box this year.

Significantly More Virtual Production Environments!

Now that they have close to 100 customers across the Americas and Europe, that produce their components across the Americas, Europe, Asia, and even Africa, they have up-to-date cost models and accurate VPEs for every major geography out-of-the-box. An engineer, or buyer, can get a rough idea of production cost for any supported production process in any geography before even engaging with a supplier, who can, of course, provide even more accurate cost data specific to their factory.

Support for Every Standard CAD File Format and Just About Every CAD System

The more customers you get, the more CAD systems and file formats you have to work with. At this point in their evolution, aPriori now supports every standard CAD file format and every major CAD system currently in use in the manufacturing sector.

Improved UI

It looks better, responds faster, and integrates the best of CAD and OLAP. The main screen has three sections: the component view, the cost model, and the process model. Each displays the high-level information, but in each the user can drill down as deep as she desires.

Full Excel Export Capability

Not only can the user copy and customize process models and VPEs, update / override any cost, and save any scenario – but they can also export the full scenario and underlying cost model to excel for analysis, review, and distribution.

Powerful Comparison Reports

The user can compare multiple process models, and associated costs, for a part side-by-side, and, if desired, export the full comparison report to Excel.

Roll-Ups and Automatic Process Model Generation and Solution

A user can create a component-based production should-cost model that rolls-up the production should-cost model for each part and the system will automatically cost the full component using the individual part geometries and identified (or default) production processes and, if desired, the lowest cost production process for the entire component.

The improvements save their customers millions every year. For example, the construction equipment manufacturer that saved over 500K annually just on frame and door production also saves over 200K annually on cage rear pivot production. The manufacturer thought that machined casting w/x-Ray was the best way to produce the part, but the aPriori solution was able to determine that a two-step process that first burned the part farm from plate and then machined holed the cavities could reduce the cost from 16.56 to 10.05 on 22K cage pivots per year.

And it’s not just construction equipment manufacturers that save. Thermo King, which produces temperature and climate control products for the transportation industry, analyzed 5.679M in annual spend across 294 sheet metal parts and quickly identified a potential savings of 900K (16%) and realized 400K of this in just 12 days! And a a 6.5B manufacturer of commercial trucks that analyzed 7.7M Euro in spend across 86 sheet metal parts was quickly able to identify that 17 of the 86 parts were “outliers” (and nowhere near expected costs) and through additional analysis was able to identify better production methods that led to a confirmed savings of 1.6M Euro (21%).

It definitely helps to know your expected production costs aPriori!

aPriori, rationi viam ad sumptus! Caput I

When we last covered aPriori in 2007 and 2008 in aPriori and The Sourcing Maniacs 2008 Vendor Tour Part III, they were very focussed on Enterprise Cost Management (ECM) and taking cost out of the design phase. Fast-forward six years later, and nothing has changed, except, of course, the depth, breadth, and usability of their platform — which has grown in leaps and bounds.

Unlike traditional sourcing applications, including advanced spend analysis and decision optimization, that are limited to component cost-based should-cost models, aPriori can also factor in design and production factors to model the full production cycle of the part you are buying (if it’s metal, plastic, or, in some cases, electronics-based) and give you a true understanding of what the part should cost to make. The reality is that the cost of a part is dependent not only on its design, but on the production process employed. As noted in our first post, a supplier that’s always made a certain part a certain way might not realize that new technology or materials would allow them to make that part significantly cheaper if they used a different process. Since the aPriori application instantly and directly interfaces with your CAD program and interrogates the solid model to extract the geometric cost drivers, the aPriori application can automatically determine all the process routings that can be used to make the part, compute the costs associated with each step based upon standard machine, material, and labor costs, and compute the total cost of each part on a per unit basis by factoring non-geometric cost-drivers such as production volumes, the selected supplier or factory set-up selected, and the exact routing and machines used. This is because the aPriori application currently supports over 200 out-of-the-box process models in over 12 major process groups (including, but not limited to, Bar & Tube Fabrication, Casting, Forging, Machining, Plastic Moulding, Powder Metal, Roto & Blow Moulding, Sheet Metal Sheet Plastic, Stock Machining and Rapid Prototyping.

In addition, because the application supports the creation of complete VPEs (Virtual Production Environments) that encapsulate the production processes, a customer can fully model the production and overhead costs associated with each production process supported by a factory in question, including local labour, power, maintenance, and other overhead costs to create a fully accurate should-cost production model, which can be compared to alternate production processes in the factory and other factories modeled with an appropriate VPE. This allows for the true identification of the lowest cost because, as the Sourcing Maniacs documented in their vendor tour post, the COGS is a combination of raw material costs, labor costs, production overhead costs, and margin and these costs not only vary by locale and production process, but in their interaction. For example, just because you identify three ways to make a part and each requires three steps, this doesn’t mean that each process is going to be roughly equal in cost. Not only do different processes require different amounts of manpower or energy (for energy-intensive equipment like lasers, etc.), but reordering the steps can change the manpower or energy required in subsequent steps.

Let’s take, for example, the production of the main Frame sides and door for a piece of heavy machinery construction equipment. An aPriori customer was cutting the entire frame using a laser process. While this seemed efficient, as only one piece of machinery was required, cutting the entire frame and door using a laser cost them 75.54 per frame and door combination, and they required over 14,000 of these combinations a year. That’s over a million dollars on just one part! If, however, as discovered by aPriori who analyzed the geometry and ran it through every possible production process that was available to the manufacturer, they switched to a two-stage production process that involved an initial laser cutting of the frame and door followed by an NC Punch process to punch out the internal cavities, the time required to produce a single frame and door combination decreased by 14 minutes and the cost decreased by 56% to 33.29 (as laser cutting is expensive compared to NC punch).

So what’s new with aPriori? Come back for Part II.

The First World Postal Services are in Trouble, But …

Royal Mail in the United Kingdom was founded in 1516.

The first post-master general was appointed in the US in 1775.

Canada Post was founded in 1867.

But yet it’s Canada Post that could be the postal service to show how struggling postal services may yet survive in the twenty-fist century!

As reported in this post over on The Economist Blogs, Canada Post, also looking at large pension shortfalls (to the tune of 6 Billion), is the first of the big postal services to make the drastic changes required to keep financially viable in the new world of online advertising, billing, and payments and private delivery services. It appears that Canada Post is going to be the first to eliminate home mail delivery — putting everyone on community mailboxes.

Home delivery to the 5 million households who still receive it will be phased out over four years, beginning in 2014. They will join the 3.8 million households that already go to a group mailbox to collect mail and parcels. (Canada’s remaining residents collect mail from building lobbies, public and private post offices, or rural mailboxes.)

Unfortunately, staying alive will also result in 8,000 postal workers being cut from a postal staff of 55,000. Hopefully the private parcel delivery services will continue to grow, especially with the growth of online commerce in Canada (led by Amazon and it’s recent introduction of its Prime Service in Canada), and pick up a large number of these displaced workers.

Now, the home mail delivery alone, estimated to save 500 Million a year, won’t make that much of an impact against a 6 Billion pension shortfall, but it’s a good start, especially if Canada Post’s savings projection of 700M to 900M a year by 2020, from all of the changes it plans to make, comes true.

Why are Your Inland Shipping Costs in China so High?

As this recent article over on South China Morning Post on Last Mile Transport’s Heavy Load for Truckers implies, it’s probably poor planning on your part.

Specifically, it’s expecting that China carriers can move your product from A to B as fast as North American carriers can get your product from C to D, where the distance from A to B equals the distance from C to D. Although China’s transportation infrastructure is much better than India’s transportation infrastructure, it’s still not on par with the US which gets a 4.14 ranking (out of 5) compared to China’s 3.61 (as per the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index).

Not only is transportation infrastructure insufficient in some parts of mainland China, or overcrowded in many of the big urban areas, but there is also the restriction that trucks can’t be on the highways after midnight. (In the US, the worst you have to deal with is speed limits that drop 10 mph at night. As long as the driver hasn’t reached his daily driving limit, that truck can drive all night long.)

As a result, when you insist on unrealistic schedules, with penalties for late delivery, you end up costing the logistics company needed revenue that it needs to cover the highway and first-tier road fees, as 95% of the country’s highways and 61% of it’s first-tier roads are toll roads (and the company has to use these roads to ensure reasonable delivery times as the free roads are typically dirt roads not suitable for transport trucks). As a result, knowing that it’s going to be late on a significant number of deliveries unless it illegally drives on the highway at night (which will result in harsh fines), and, as a result, get hit with a large number of penalties, the logistics company has to increase its base rates to absorb the expected losses to stay in business.

Thus, if you acknowledged the reality of the transportation situation that Chinese logistics companies have to deal with, accepted slightly longer delivery times, and planned accordingly, you could reduce your mainland China logistics costs — especially if, instead of using one of the almost 10,000 small or mid-sized companies that can’t take advantage of economies of scale and end up absorbing a lot of empty miles, you use one of the few large companies that have enough trucks, and warehouses, to minimize empty miles and use their scale to their advantage. (Plus, shifting more to the bigger carriers will allow them to become financially stable enough to acquire some of the smaller carriers where their footprint is weak, and this should further decrease costs in the future. Furthermore, when the market sees consolidation working, some of the mid-sized carriers will likely merge to offer more cost-effective options. China is big enough that it can support dozens of major carriers, not just a handful like some of the smaller global marketplaces. As a result, even with significant consolidation, there should still be ample competition to keep prices low.)