Category Archives: Manufacturing

What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ – Counterpoint

Today’s guest post is from Dick Locke, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on International Sourcing and Procurement, and is a counterpoint to Derek Singleton‘s recent post on What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ over on Software Advice.

This is the kind of prediction I like to put in an envelope and promise to open in 5 years to see if it came true.

It’s great that Airbus came to the United States. There’s no doubt that many companies who tried China sourcing weren’t capable of doing it well. There was also a rush to put production in China that didn’t belong there. Those would be items that require flexible scheduling and for which air freight costs make China prohibitive for US consumption. No doubt some of that is in the $200B pie chart of products that are likely to move from China to the US. No doubt that Chinese labor costs are rising, but the 13% figure annual increase figure cited is for Chinese minimum wage, of questionable relevance to exports.

But $122B in computers and electronics? I really doubt that. That’s roughly 100% of the US imports from China of computers, phones, TVs and monitors, and parts for those items. Those aren’t being built in China for anything much to do with labor costs. It’s where the suppliers are. Foxconn has a million people assembling electronics. Why do manufacturers gravitate toward a particular location? Michael Porter, in “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” nailed it. It’s a combination of four factors.

  1. Factor conditions (this includes labor rates and a lot more)
  2. Related and supporting industries
  3. Demanding customers
  4. High degree of competition

China has three out of the four. They are especially strong in item 2. Nearly all the components are built there, except for a few high value parts.

Looking further, if companies pull out of China, where would they go? Phones, other than from Apple, largely come from Korean and Taiwanese companies.

Televisions are also largely from non-US companies. As they drop in price, shipping costs become a larger fraction of total costs, so many TVs for the North American market are being built in Mexico. (Mexican TV and monitor imports to the US passed China’s a few years ago.)

We’ll see how the prediction holds up. In the meantime, strategic sourcing professionals should make up their own minds, not just look at trends or predicted trends.

Thanks, Dick. (Global Supply Training)

Are All of Your Supply Management Planning Processes Aligned?

A recent article over on Supply Chain Brain from JDA software on Building the Supply Chain of the Future made a great point when it noted that in any supply chain there are … core business processes that must be closely synchronized in order to enable organizational agility and market responsiveness. Unless business processes are aligned in closed-loop planning processes, the organization will be unable to sense demand shits and … balance a number of priorities, including costs, customer service levels, supply risks, production constraints and environmental targets in its quest to achieve the best possible outcome.

The article from JDA indicated that six core planning processes must be synchronized in order to achieve agility, market responsiveness, and success. And they are right. The following six planning processes must be synchronized:

  • Sales & Operations Planning (S&OP)
    A good S&OP process provides a disciplined cadence for monitoring and synchronizing demand, production, supply, inventory, and financial plans via a rigorous Plan-Do-Check-Act process as a foundation for allowing the supply chain to share a common perspective on issues and potential resolutions.
  • Demand Planning
    Typically involves the utilization of advanced statistical and predictive modelling to ensure that sourcing, production, inventory, transportation, and distribution models are optimized on a shared forecast.
  • Inventory Planning
    Good inventory planning allows for tailored “designer” models for each category and commodity to minimize overstock, out-of-stock, and financial risks based upon key commodity and category attributes.
  • Master Planning
    That allows for S&OP, inventory, and demand-based supply plans to be analyzed and updated daily in response to demand and supply changes.
  • Factory Planning & Scheduling
    The creation of optimized production plans by plants by scheduling backward from the requirement date, with material and capacity constraints simultaneously considered for feasible plan creation.
  • Collaborative Supply Planning
    That allows manufacturers to monitor multiple tiers of the supply chain and each supplier that is supplying a raw material, component, or service necessary for the creation of each product being sourced from a tier 1 supplier and work with multiple suppliers simultaneously to identify minor hiccups before they become major issues to collaboratively resolve a problem before it becomes a major headache.

But this is not enough to ensure success in today’s fast-paced fickle global marketplace. Not only do we have extreme demand, supply, and cost volatility across materials, components, products, and markets, but we also have extreme competition on the sales side as penny pinching buyers, short on cash, are looking for the best deal possible. As a result, your organization not only has to be leaner and meaner than ever before, but it has to be more focussed on the value it can provide. As a result, your S&OP, demand, inventory, factory, master, and collaborative supply plans have to be linked to, and reinforce, your organizational strategy. As a result, each of these plans need to be aligned with organizational:

  • Strategic Planning
    which is the process of defining the organizational strategy and direction and the allocation of resources, financial and human capital, to pursue this strategy.

If these seven planning processes are aligned, your organization just might have what it takes to make it through this decade and emerge a supply management leader when the smoke clears.

Is Your Dumpster Full of Dollars?

And I’m not just talking about the significant savings opportunities that can come from optimizing your trash pick up with a good spend analysis, as discussed in SI’s recent post that asked [IF] You Know How Much Your Trash Costs You? An average retail chain will write of a lot of damaged inventory and discard it in the dumpster when, in fact, that inventory, if repaired, or, typically, returned in a timely manner, could result in significant dollars back in the retail chain’s pocket.

As pointed out in a recent post over on the Supply Chain View from the Field on “Reverse Logistics: What happens to all of those product returns you’ve been making, anyway?”, what typically happens with a return that could result in a credit to the retailer is that it ends up in many cases going into the dumpster even though, in many cases, the product is still good. This happens for a variety of reasons. The store manager doesn’t know that a return to the manufacturer will result in a credit. The store manager believes it will cost more to process the return than discard the item (or, if the store manager is lucky enough, sell it to a flea market). The store manager knows that there is money that is probably worth going after in the return, but has to use a new returns management / liquidation system that they don’t know how to use and can’t figure out on their own because it’s clumsy or ill-defined (like the SARS system that has been pushed down to individual stores by Home Depot and that could spell the beginning of the end). Or maybe they can figure out how to record the damage, get a pending credit, but lose the credit because they don’t process, and (bar)code the return properly.

Returns, which can often be refurbished, repaired, re-sold, or in the case of a NPI (New Product Introduction), returned to the producer/manufacturer within a certain timeframe for a full refund as per the contract, may not have the profit potential of a product that is not returned, but they still have profit potential and, most importantly, when properly managed, do not result in expense and loss. Proper reverse logistics and returns management, which is standardized, near real-time, and provides multi-channel visibility (as discussed in this post which brought you Reverse Logistics Tips from World Trade Magazine, significantly improves the bottom line and should be performed by every retailer and reseller.

For a few more tips, check out Rob Handfield’s tips from his post on “Reverse Logistics: What happens to all of those product returns you’ve been making, anyway?”.

Apologies to the Faithful, but Optimized Planning is Good, not God!

Last Tuesday, Trevor Miles published a great post over on the the 21st Century Supply Chain blog on how Optimized Planning is Good, not God!. This cannot be understated. Too many companies think that a great plan is the key to unlock the treasure chest that contains the much sought-after savings. It’s the key alright, but you have to fit it in the lock if you want to unlock the treasure chest. And the only way one gets to fit the key in the lock is if one actually reaches the treasure chest, and this requires control. You see, this treasure chest of savings sits on a pedestal at the end of a dark and dangerous dungeon filled with traps, treacherous descents, and natural horrors at every turn. Think of every dungeon and tomb that Indiana Jones had to survive, put them all together, and add in a few dozen more traps and that’s the danger an organization has to evade on a daily basis if it wants to reach the treasurer chest.

As such, an organization requires a lot of control in the form of integrated monitoring and control. At every turn, an organization has to look ahead to see what traps may lie in its path, look back to see what creatures are coming up behind it, and be aware of the foundations crumbling beneath its plan and react quickly, and correctly. The reasons this are the case is simple — nothing every goes according to plan (even if you are the A-Team as you always have to deal with the unexpected wrench to complete the plan) and even if it did, the plan is never right anyway.

Consider the quoted study from Terra Technology that shows that an average forecast is typically no more than 52% accurate. This means that even if the supply forecast was perfect, it would still be, at most, 52% accurate. That’s why an organization has to continuously monitor the plan, and as soon as significant variances arise, respond by re-optimizing the plan. That’s the only way to reach the treasure chest of savings that optimization promises. Otherwise, the savings will never materialize as they were calculated with respect to a plan that was never executed.

So check out Trevor’s post over on the the 21st Century Supply Chain blog on how Optimized Planning is Good, not God!. It’s a great read!

The Case for Onshoring … Is A Damn Good One!

Upon a closer look, offshoring is not always the right answer for all products, especially those sold in America. For one thing, labor costs in general are shrinking as a share of the total cost for many items. Moreover, average factory wages in many developing countries are rising, as is the demand for America’s sophisticated just-in-time, cost-saving, logistical systems. When common shipping problems are added into the mix — natural disasters, security threats, political instability, theft and other risks — more manufacturers are concluding that the savings offshoring had promised are just not there.
Guy Morgan, BBK Managing Director
from “The Case for Onshoring” (Industry Week)

You’d almost think he was trying to get in the doctor‘s good book! Truer words could not be spoken and I could not have said it better myself.

And these words are true whether you are talking manufacturing, software development, back-office functions, or call-centre outsourcing. We’ll review some high points of the article and then discuss these other points.

I think the author is right when he quotes Harry Moser, retired chairman emeritus of GF AgieCharmiles, who argued that many companies began moving production to low-cost countries mainly because they thought everyone else was. The worried that a competitor might gain a cost advantage; and, in the process, they put a limit on their thinking by fixating on a component’s sticker price rather than considering its total cost. But this leads to problems, especially since as per a 2009 analysis by Archstone Consulting and Duke University, most manufacturers use “rudimentary total cost models” that ignore 20% of the offshoring’s cost. And when you add to this the fact that the prices for Asian manufactured products have risen 15% to 20% in the past 4 years, there aren’t that many cost advantages.

And then, as the author astutely points out, you need to factor in excess inventory to replace poor-quality products and insure against late shipments, stolen intellectual property, rising fuel costs, environmental impact and more … which all adds up to more cost!

Add it all up, and it’s often cheaper to produce your product in North America. And this is sometimes the case even if you have to produce it in or near a major city that you would normally consider to be a high-cost locale!

It is time for the home-shoring renaissance that the doctor has been predicting since 2007 (which is well before the Boston Consulting Group figured it out, as mentioned in the article, but we’ll forgive them because they’re still ahead of the curve). What everyone is forgetting is that, despite higher labour costs, good ol’ (North) American ingenuity and innovation always leads to much higher rates of productivity and lower component costs in the end that always more than cancel out the labour costs. The proclamation that some U.S. states will become among the most cost-effective locations for manufacturing in the developed world is a correct one and it will happen. The only question is will your organization be one of the few who will lead the way and reap the greatest rewards?

And if you want to get an idea of how big those cost savings associated with onshoring could be and you’re in manufacturing, checkout the FREE TCO Estimator associated with the Reshoring Initiative over on ReshoreNow.org. It’s not perfect, but with 29 cost factors, it’s a good start.

As for the other industries I mentioned, you’ll save money bringing those back as well.

If your software development is outsourced to India, there are big savings to be had. Labour costs are still rising and the average skilled worker now costs (at least) 40% as much as his American counterpart. You might say that he’s still cheaper even after communication, remote management, and reduced productivity costs are factored in, but, if it’s innovative development, he’s not — especially if you reshore to Canada. Up here, we have the Scientific Research & Educational Development tax credit which can refund you up to 75% of approved research and development costs. And if you need money up front, it can always be stacked with the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program. And since, up here, a software development resource costs at most twice as much as a resource in India, after these programs are applied, our world-class developers, who speak your language in your time zone and understand your business, cost half as much.

With respect to back-office functions and call-centres, there are a large number of small, rural, towns with low costs of living that would thrive off your operation and staff it at very affordable rates. And while the North American minimum wage might be three or four times as much as a prevailing wage for an English speaking call center or back office resource in Asia, when you consider that many calls will be resolved significantly faster as both parties will understand, and be comfortable, with each other from the first “hello” (as many North Americans aren’t comfortable with Asian call-centre support and have problems understanding their accent), the higher labour cost is negated with higher productivity. Plus, and this is key, no long-distance costs, no remote infrastructure costs, and significantly lower training costs (with much lower turnover). Win, win, win.

Bring the work back home. Unless you’re a Fortune 500 (like Apple) with demand for your product so big that it has to be made in a city (like Foxconn), and in the top 0.01%, it will be more cost effective to do so. And the higher quality and lower risk will make it all worth while.