Category Archives: Manufacturing

Arena – Taking PLM Deep Into the Supply Chain Part I

When we last covered The Arena Solution in 2007, we stated that Arena were the providers of an effective, on-demand, PLM solution that could manage the information associated with the entire lifecycle of a product from conception, through design and manufacture, to service and disposal, which, for a low margin manufacturing organization, could be the difference between costly inefficiency and profitable efficiency. One of the unique features of the solution was its support for collaboration between the buying organization and the supplying organization through an online portal.

Since the release of their first on-demand solution in 2007, which was focussed around BOM (Bill-of-Material) Management, Item Management and Change Management, over the last few years they added (better) Document Management, Quality Management, and Compliance Management. The Document Management capability, built on their change management and collaboration tools, streamlines the document management process, manages the revision process, supports privilege-based access for anyone who needs to access the document, be they employee or supplier representative, and supports the meta-data categorization required for advanced search and rapid retrieval.

The Quality Management capability supports your CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) process and allows the organization to track progress on quality improvement processes over the long term. The Quality Management capability allows for the creation of issues, corrective action requests, and tasks necessary to resolve the issues identified by the corrective action requests. It also associates the issues to requests, BOMs, and associated documents and allows the process to be managed from beginning to end and the entire history to be archived for the institutionalization of knowledge.

The Compliance Management capability was designed to allow an organization to meet regulatory requirements and track compliance information for products and processes with BOM-level control to allow an organization to comply with medical, environmental, regulatory, safety, and process standards and regulations. From import restrictions to quality standards to safety standards to reporting regulations, a manufacturing organization often has more regulations to adhere to than it has items in its largest BOM (which can be quite large, especially if it’s manufacturing automobiles, airplanes, or automated control systems for nuclear power plants). This is not an easy task when the organization often has to track the materials in every item in its BOM, the insurance certificates for each supplier, and the third party certifications for each product. But with a proper solution that allows the suppliers to upload the relevant documents, and manage them, the process is a lot easier.

And, finally, they added more Enterprise Integration. A PLM solution that doesn’t integrate with your ERP/MRP solution has almost as many disadvantages as it has advantages. And those disadvantages revolve around data, and data entry. At some point, orders have to be placed, and those orders at some point have to flow through the ERP system that manages the payables, the inventory, and the demand tracking. If there is no integration, the BOMs for all of the existing products will have to be manually entered or loaded into the PLM solution and the BOMs for all of the New Product Introductions will have to be manually entered into the ERP. Not a pretty picture. That’s why Arena spent a lot of time integrating with all of the major ERP and MRP systems out there over the last few years. But Arena didn’t stop there. Realizing that, as they progressed up the supply chain capability curve, that demand needs to get into sourcing systems, that regular orders need to get into procurement systems, that compliance information needs to get into reporting systems, etc., they figured out that no matter how many systems you integrate with, it will never be enough so, in their current release that just came out this quarter (which contains a number of new capabilities on top of the capabilities discussed so far), they built a new Open RESTful API that can be used to push data into Arena from any system and pull any and all data out of the Arena solution that needs to be pushed into other organizational systems. We’ll discuss this more in Part II when we talk about the four new capabilities that were just released as part of the new Arena solution.

Reuse, Recycle, Remanufacture – Call It What You Want, But Just Do It!

Sourcing Innovation has been promoting sustainability since the beginning and design for recycle since the very early days, which is essentially what you are doing if you are designing for remanufacturing, which is finally starting to take hold in parts of the industrial sector, as per this recent article over on ThomasNet from the green & clean on “a solution that makes both economic and environmental sense”.

When you think about the average complexity of today’s consumer products, especially in electronics, it becomes clear that when a product breaks, it is typically only one component that is broken and a replacement of that component makes the product useable again. That’s why a lot of computer, tablet, and phone manufacturers have entered the refurbishment business – once the damaged or defective part in a product that was returned under warranty or reclaimed upon disposal by a customer, it can be reused and, more importantly, resold.

But the concept doesn’t end with electronics, and doesn’t end with refurbishment. Electronics can be designed more modularly with re-manufacture in mind, so that parts can be upgraded en-masse when the products are returned en-masse in a regular upgrade cycle. For example, if laptops were designed for easy replacement of not only memory and drives, but processors and peripheral connectors (in anticipation of USB 4, Thunderbolt 2, etc.), the previous generation models could become the next generation models and resold as either lower-end offerings in the same market or new offerings in a foreign, emerging market.

And automotive suppliers, who not only know that parts wear out, but when parts are likely to wear out, and which parts wear out together, could not only design their engines to make it easy to replace parts, such as spark plugs, batteries, belts, filters, and pumps that wear out quickly, but also the engine block as a whole, that is going to wear out in 7 to 15 years, depending on the average annual mileage. Given the choice, many people on a fixed income (who don’t live by the ocean and have rust to worry about) would rather replace the engine for 3,000 to 5,000 and keep the car for another 7-10 years if the frame is fine than pay 25,000 or 30,000 for a new car. And while this may not look as attractive from a bottom line perspective to a manufacturer, it significantly reduces the chance of the customer migrating to a different car company, which is very common if a competitor is offering a significantly better deal on a comparable car.

Plus, if the components are themselves designed for remanufacturing, it will be relatively easy for the manufacturer to reclaim the raw materials from the damaged or defective components, which is where a lot of the cost comes in, especially if we are talking rare earth metals. For example, the price of praseodymium-neodymium oxide exceed 1.25 an ounce and prices of terbium oxide (a semi-conductor that is used as an activator for green phospors in colour TV tubes) exceeded 12.00 an ounce this summer, and that’s cheap. Gold, a metal used in many electronics products, exceeded $1400 an ounce. And while there is not much gold in a single laptop, when you put fifty of them together, you’d likely get an ounce. And given that there are roughly 100 Million PC laptops and computers sold a year, that’s close to 2 Million ounces of gold that need to be reclaimed!

And, as per the green & clean article, remanufactured products offer cost savings in the 45% to 60% range! So if doing the right thing isn’t enough, that should be enough of a justification to invest in remanufacturing! This goes double if you are in electronics (for some of the reasons given above) or automotive, where the global market for remanufactured auto parts is projected to reach $122.8 Billion by 2018.

So, regardless of what you want to call it, it’s time to do it. It’s not just good environmental stewardship, it’s good economics.

Could the Fateful Four Bring Down Your High-Tech or Automotive Supply Chain?

Today, Resilinc announced that leading global supply chains have become dependent on the same small group of sub-tier suppliers – concentrating the risk and significantly increasing the potential for crippling supply chain disruptions. Based on global supply chain mapping data that it gathered over the past year, which analyzed a subset of data from over 600 large and medium suppliers across 2,500+ sites spread over 50+ countries, Resilinc performed a detailed analysis in order to identify specific industry trends that could be used to create stronger supply chain resiliency plans.

This study, which focussed on the analysis of sub-tiers that often hide risks that go undetected by the buying organization, not only found that global supply chain risk tends to be concentrated in certain sub-tier suppliers and localities, but also found that many leading global supply chains, in the High-Tech and Automotive sectors in particular, have become dependent on the same small group of sub-tier suppliers.

In particular, the study found that in the High-Tech and Automotive supply chains, the vast majority of suppliers are dependent on sites that are owned by just four suppliers and that more than 50% of all sites analyzed are located in just four countries: Taiwan, China, the USA, and Japan. Who are these four suppliers that can control the fate of your entire High-Tech or Automotive Supply Chain? Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC), with an 83.8 B market cap; Amkor Technology (AMKR), with a 926 M market cap; ASE Inc, with a 191.5 B market cap ; and United Microelectronics (UMC) with a 5.2 B market cap. With a combined market capitalization of over 281 B, these fateful four suppliers have a commanding control of your High-Tech and Automotive Supply Chains.

For more information on how visibility can improve your supply chain resiliency, see the IDC Manufacturing Insights on Arguing the Case for Supply Chain Resiliency in 2013 (registration required).

Optimization: Is It Time to Move Beyond Sourcing?

A big focus of this blog is, of course, Strategic Sourcing Decision Optimization (SSDO), one of the few advanced sourcing methodologies guaranteed to save your organization, on average, 12% if correctly applied (as demonstrated in two back-to-back studies by Aberdeen) and the doctor‘s speciality. But it’s not the only place you can apply optimization in Supply Management to save money. Another area, as covered a number of times on SI, is Supply Chain Network Optimization (SCNO). And, of course, some companies just focus on the intersection and do Logistics optimization. But this is not everything that can be done, or should be done, especially in an age where many industries now see The End of Competitive Advantage and don’t actually own physical assets, leasing them as need be to create the products and services desired by their prospective customers.

In this situation, what matters is Asset Optimization, where you optimize a one-time dynamic network to minimize sourcing, network, and logistics costs to minimize the total supply chain costs associated with the product you wish to produce. This is easier said than done. In sourcing, you are mainly considering bids, lanes, and associated costs to compute the optimal TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), and if lifetime costs and metrics are available, or TVG (Total Value Generated) with respect to a fixed situation. In network optimization, you are optimizing the location of owned factories, supplier production centers, warehouses, and retailers to optimize the distribution costs. But in asset network optimization, you have to simultaneously consider the network and associated distribution costs, the sourcing requirements and associated production costs, and the costs of using, or not using, the resources you already have available and contracts you have already negotiated. In addition, you have to consider the risks associated with each potential supplier and location, the sensitivity of the overall asset network to each supplier and location (and is there a single point of failure), and the ability to dynamically alter the network should a failure occur or customer demands change.

Plus you have all of the difficulties associated with each type of optimization. With respect to the network, there will be many alternatives for production site, each site will have multiple, and different, asset lines, and each asset will be qualified for a certain operation with respect to a certain product. In addition, some assets will be more efficient and cost effective, and unqualified assets will have a qualification/certification step, which will require limited manpower – a variable that does not need to be modelled in traditional sourcing or SCNO models. It’s a very difficult problem that requires modelling of multiple types of variables and constraints at multiple levels at multiple times. And this last requirement makes the model even more complex. In a traditional sourcing model, you don’t really need to consider “time”, as it doesn’t matter how often the trucks deliver your product, just how many trucks are needed to deliver your product as you are billed FTL or LTL by the delivery. And it doesn’t matter what production schedule the supplier(s) use(s) as long as your products are ready on time, so only the total volume need be considered. But when you are dealing with production models, especially when trying to dynamically construct and optimize an asset network, production schedules are significant. If a certain location only has 30% of capacity left available and can only schedule it during a given timeframe, that has to be taken into account. If some of the products have to be delivered before they can complete the first production run, then there has to be a location that is able to do so. And if a continual supply is needed over nine months, the production cycles should more or less line up with minimal overlap as, otherwise, inventory costs would soar.

It’s a complicated problem, but one that is becoming more and more important in fast moving industries such as fashion and consumer electronics — and one that most SSDO providers can’t address. But I’m happy to report that there are a few optimization vendors in the space who can. One is Algorhythm, in India, that has been doing SCNO for many years, and who has built up a lot of this capability over time while working for it’s global multinational clients such as Unilever. Another, newer entrant, is Trade Extensions, that has been doing SSDO for many years and, at the request of its major multi-national clients, including P&G and Coca-Cola, built up the capability in their solution with innovative new platform enhancements since SI last reviewed their solution in 2011 that make it very easy to define the models, run the scenarios, compare and navigate the results. A few of these enhancements will be described in a future post. Stay tuned!

China is Not to Blame for Our Manufacturing Woes

Laurence Edwards and Robert Z Lawrence of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and authors of Rising Tide, Is Growth in Emerging Economies Good for the United States, have put a presentation based on their book online that, among other things, clearly demonstrates that China is Not the cause of our manufacturing woes. Given that 86% of North America based companies have a supply chain that relies upon key parts from China (as noted in the Risk Management Monitor) and that a number of prominent economists (including Samuelson, Summers, and Krugman) have stated that growing trade (especially with low-cost countries, with China being #1 for many years) reduces wages, welfare, and jobs, this might be hard to believe. But it’s true. In fact, China outsourcing has had essentially zero impact on North American manufacturing. How can this be?

Consider this chart which shows the manufacturing share in establishment employment from 1961 – 2010. When you look at the forecast based upon the fitted trend line of market share from 1961 to 1979, and the actual share of manufacturing employment, you see that the forecast was dead on! (Moreover, the trend has been repeated around the world – including Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany.)

Manufacturing Job Trend

This data suggests that the reason for the decline in manufacturing is a common, pervasive, cause. Specifically, productivity growth. Automation is reducing the amount of labor required to produce goods. If the amount of labour required to produce goods decreases, the only way that jobs could retain constant is if demand increased. But this didn’t happen because, let’s face it, most people only want one fridge, one car, and one iPhone. (Yes, some people want two, or three, but not ten, or more, and when you consider the increase in manufacturing productivity over the last fifty years, for many goods, we’d have to buy ten to maintain the same level of manufacturing employment.)

But we could afford to buy more, as the productivity increases have, relatively speaking, brought many prices down (adjusted for inflation). So why haven’t losses slowed? Because we buy services instead. We eat out more, take limos, and pay carriers to give us 4G service. And that’s the real reason manufacturing jobs have declined, because service jobs grew. So, in this case, we can’t blame China, even though they have taken a very large amount of North American dollars over the past 30 years.