Category Archives: rants

Could the U.S. Be A Next Generation Manufacturing Economy?

It’s an interesting question, especially when the U.S. doesn’t have the capacity to support global operations like Apple with their manufacturing needs. There’s only 83 U.S. cities with enough population to support a Foxconn-size manufacturing plant, and for the vast majority of these, only if a significant amount of the population could staff the factory. Even in New York, some estimates state that 7% of the working population would have to work in the same factory to support iPhone production. That’s seven percent! Chances are that not even 0.7% of the population would be qualified without extensive training.

Based on this, despite what some articles might suggest, current generation manufacturing can not return to the US. However, that doesn’t mean that next generation manufacturing, focused primarily on producing specialized high-end technology products for the medical and engineering professions, couldn’t be the backbone of the US economy in the decade ahead.

Consider this recent item in Industry Week on “Arrow Gear — A Case Study in How to Improve the U.S. Economy”. According to the article, Arrow Gear increased its workforce by 35% in the face of the worst recession since the Great Depression by creating products used in high-end, high-priced systems that were being exported. A manufacturer of high precision gears for a wide range of commercial and aerospace applications, it accomplished this feat by investing millions of dollars into its state-of-the-art facility.

This would suggest that a focus on specialty products for the aerospace, health, and (green) energy sectors, in particular, could allow manufacturing to return, in at least a limited extent, to the U.
S. But only if the U.S. takes a lead before another country steps up to the challenge.

Any differing thoughts?

Reverse Auctions: Old Is New, But One-Time is Still Just One-Time!

The IBM Center for The Business of Government’s recent report by David C. Wyld (the Director of the Strategic e-Commerce/e-Government Initiative at Southeastern Louisiana University) on “Reverse Auctioning: Saving Money and Increasing Transparency” is a great read for government organizations and a good read for Supply Management organizations that are on the back-end of the supply management innovation curve, as long as these organizations don’t fall for some of the claims that are hyped beyond reality (with respect to the private sector). While a private sector organization will generally see all of the following benefits the first time they use reverse auctions:

  • downward prices
  • increased competition
  • real-time market pricing
  • process efficiencies
  • time savings
  • increased number of suppliers
  • sustainable cost savings

These are the benefits a private-sector organization will generally see the second time it runs a reverse auction:

  • real-time market pricing

That’s right. The only additional benefit an average private-sector organization will see continue to see the second time it runs a reverse auction on a category is real-time market pricing. Why? Let’s take the suggested benefits one-by-one.

  • downward prices
    Generally speaking, the first time suppliers are invited to take part in a transparent winner-takes-the-contract auction in a market that favours the buyer, the suppliers will compete so aggressively that they will even jeopardize profit margins. As a result, the prices they offer will generally be unsustainable in the long term. That is why auctions started to fall out of favour with market leaders in the mid-noughts. While the first auctions returned amazing results, the subsequent increase in raw material costs as demand rose resulted in their initial bids being unsustainable. Thus, the suppliers had to raise prices just to stay in business (and as soon as the power shifted back to them, the suppliers increased their prices substantially to make up for the loss).
  • increased competition
    Generally speaking, suppliers get so competitive the first time with their pricing that there is little, if any room, left to increase competitiveness the second time around.
  • process efficiencies
    Once you have shifted to the reverse auction model, you have already gained the process efficiencies you’re going to gain. Reverse auctions don’t get more efficient over time.
  • time savings
    Since reverse auctions don’t really get more efficient over time, once you have switched to the model, there are no more time savings to be gained.
  • Increased number of suppliers
    While electronic reverse auctions do allow more suppliers to be invited to the table without too much extra work, if the auction is opened up, all suppliers that want your business are going to jump in. And, when they fail to win your business, some of them will even back out the next time around.
  • Sustainable Cost Savings
    Simply ensuring that the organization gets real-time market pricing does not lead to savings. In fact, if raw material prices or demand is going up, it can lead to significant losses. The way to sustained savings in the private sector is through negotiating long term cost-reductions, process-improvements, and innovation commitments that will find additional ways to drive down costs once the fat is taken out of the supplier margin. This often requires a decision optimization, PLM, or SPM solution to find these new savings opportunities.

In short, properly used, auctions can be good for the private sector, but the greatness will only bee seen in the public sector where, on the other hand, organizations will generally continue to see the significant benefits each time a reverse auction is run on a category. Our next post will address why.

Key Takeaways from the UL Product MindSet Study, Part II

A couple of posts ago, we discussed some Interesting Facts and Figures from the UL Product MindSet, a recently released study that quantitatively surveyed 1,195 manufacturers and 1,235 consumers across a range of export and import markets in high-tech, building materials, food, and household chemicals. Then, in our last post, we reviewed four key takeaways from the UL Product MindSet Study. Today we are going to discuss our fifth, and final, takeaway from the study.

MANUFACTURERS NEED TO GET A GRIP ON REALITY!

They need to take off those rose-coloured glasses, put them on the floor, and stomp them to bits. And then they need to take the bits and grind them into dust. The findings illustrate that manufacturers are so far out of touch with reality that it’s downright scary.

First of all, let’s review the standard Gaussian curve. In a standard curve, only 31.8% of the population is one standard deviation from the norm. If we accept that only one standard deviation from the norm is enough to be “ahead of the curve”, then, at most 15.9% of the population can be ahead of the curve (and, similarly, 15.9% of the manufacturers will be behind the curve). However, the report found that an extreme majority of manufacturers believed they were ahead of the curve in safety, reliability, sustainability, and innovation. In short, this means that:

  • 81.1% of manufacturers are out-to-lunch when it comes to product safety
  • 81.1% of manufacturers are day-dreaming when it comes to product reliability
  • 78.1% of manufacturers are high-on-fumes when it comes to sustainability
  • 73.1% of manufacturers don’t-have-a-clue when it comes to innovation

The reality for the majority of manufacturers (68.2%) is that, they are, at best, on the curve. But since the reality is that, if they don’t continue to progress as their supply chains evolve around them, it won’t be long before them are behind the curve, they should just assume they are behind the curve, because 15.9% of them are and 68.2% of them aren’t far from being among that 15.9% without continued improvement efforts. So when they are done grinding those rose-colored, haze-inducing, glasses into dust, they need to get to work!

Furthermore, I see no evidence that the majority of manufacturers understand sustainability. I know it’s hard with all the greenwashing out there, but if one just ignores the hype and uses a little common sense, one can define sustainability as that which sustains operations and the environment at the same time. With this definition, it is easy to see that if an organization is not reducing its environmental footprint and at least maintaining, if not increasing, profitability at the same time, it is not sustainable. So 69% of manufacturers are wrong when they say that environmental products aren’t profitable — because, defined (and designed) right, they are.

And those manufacturers who do understand some of the basics of sustainability obviously don’t understand it’s importance. First of all, it’s not just about sustaining the environment, its about sustaining operations for generations to come. If the resources available are depleted before they can be replenished, there’ll be no materials to make new products. No products, no profit. No profit, no business. It really is that simple. As a result, sustainability should be as important as safety and reliability, not only one-fifth as important. Secondly, with even the majority of consumers in developing countries (such as China where four-fifths of the population would buy a truly green product over a non-green product if proof of claims could be provided), an organization is leaving what is potentially the biggest gold-vein available to it untapped. And finally, if manufacturers as a whole don’t change their understanding and their views, then the lot of them are are being hypocritical! (It is impossible to be ahead of the curve in sustainability, as 94% of manufacturers ridiculously claim to be, while not placing the same importance on sustainability as is placed on safety and reliability.)

Yes this is harsh, but face it, manufacturers are not going to move forward if they continue to believe the all-rainbows-and-roses picture that some other misguided (or is that money-grubbing?) analysts are painting for them. But there is a bright side. Whereas a typical organization would probably pay five, or six, figures for that rainbows-and-roses report, this post is 100% free.
(So, to any manufacturer reading this, stop calling me a downer and get to work! If you do, maybe you’ll be one of the 15.9% that is truly ahead of the curve and reap the rewards that come from earning that status.)

Remember, You Can’t Control the Clouds!

Even though futurists have been predicting weather control for well over half a century, and even though the US Government tried to control the weather for over 20 years (primarily with respect to storm prevention), the reality is that we still can not control the weather, or the clouds.

Thus, the clouds, which are not fluffy magic boxes and not omniscient magic mirrors, and which are, in fact, filled with hail despite your sweet fluffy dreams to the contrary, are perfect metaphors for the new breed of virtual hosting solutions being offered by countless vendors.

As per a recent Ponemon Institute study, as summarized by this recent CFO article on “Cloud Control”, a significant majority of 127 cloud-computing service providers surveyed believe it is their customers’ responsibility to secure the cloud, not theirs!

When Bruce Lynne, managing partner of Financial Executives Consulting Group, said Cloud is just a fancy word for outsourcing, he was right and, as a smart CFO knows, when a company outsources, it sheds work, not responsibility. And the Cloud is inherently insecure. Heck, even Amazon has “no liability … for any unauthorized access or use, corruption, deletion, destruction or loss of any of Your Content or Applications”.

And private clouds are no more secure than public clouds, because your data is still on a virtualized platform and this means that when a hacker accesses one server, he accesses them all! Almost instantaneously!

Plus, you have no idea how long your data hangs around if the service doesn’t fail. 90 days? 1 year? For as long as the service exists? Maybe the provider deletes your archived e-mails after 90 days as per the contract and your corporate data retention policies. Maybe the provider doesn’t. And you might not find out until you get sued and have to turn over 3 year old e-mails that weren’t supposed to be kept. And more importantly, how quickly can the provider retrieve all of your corporate e-mails for the past 90 days from the 10,000 employee data store that you have to turn over for discovery?

And then there’s the problem that it doesn’t matter how secure you are or how secure the provider is if even one of the cloud provider’s customers is insecure. Remember, it only takes one hacker to penetrate one server and … boom … game over.

Supply Chain Realtime Adaptive Priority Solutions — Where Are They?

In these uncertain times, what the supply chain really needs is Supply Chain Realtime Adaptive Priority Solutions, SCRAPS. Reading article after article that reiterates the age-old need to reduce risk, conserve cash, and target the most-fruitful opportunities first while simultaneously reading article after article about the same-old technology, with no innovation in sight, I am starting to look for the SCRAPS.

After asking who is going to upset the market in 2011, and seeing nothing but solution renovation from a few vendors in 2011, I’m not only wondering where the innovation is, but why for the most part (outside of a few vendors who have been improving their existing platform offerings greatly), there have been no (fundamentally) new technologies for a couple of years now. (Even though I know the answer in a lot of cases, and it’s NDA.)

We need something, even if it is only SCRAPS. And, to be honest, SCRAPS might be just what we need. Given the growing plethora of technology platforms, suppliers, geographies, internal customers, and market segments that we need to manage with very limited resources, we need a better way to stay on top of what is most important — TODAY, tomorrow, and the day after. And it’s no longer as simple as simply tracking promised award dates, contract expiry dates, order dates, shipment dates, delivery dates, promotion dates, and other dates of interest.

If a print media campaign has been delayed because a product has been delayed, how important is it to make an award today? If the contract expiring is for plant watering, is it really urgent? Especially when you could just hire a high school kid to come in once a week. But if you need seven days lead time to get those all-beef patties and you’re supporting restaurant operations where all-beef patties are 40% of orders, unless your cube is on fire, you better get that order in. Similarly, if you’re in the apparel industry and a ship date has been missed, given the lifetime of fashion, you better be ready to jump on a plane if necessary to find out what happened. And if a shipment you need tomorrow gets held in customs, you need to know about that right now, not in two days when the product doesn’t show up as expected. And you better be cognizant of when marketing decides to hold its promotions and be prepared to shift your priorities appropriately. If demand doubles, the last thing you want to do is stock out.

Thus, we need technology solutions that can re-organize and re-prioritize tasks and issues that need your attention based upon what’s the most important today, taking into account risk and opportunity (with immediate risks and short-term opportunities getting the highest priority), and not based upon traditional project timelines. And, more importantly, we need solutions that can take the different tasks and risks being captured by your sourcing (spend analysis, RFX, eAuction, optimization, contract management), procurement (requisition management, invoice management, P2P, etc.), transportation and trade (document management, 3PL & transportation management, regulatory compliance management), and risk management solutions and integrate them into a cohesive picture of what is important now, short term, and long term and that can “calendar” them into daily, weekly, and monthly priorities so that you can focus on what’s important, ignore what’s not, and find time for long term strategic planning (by only focussing on real fires and not prank smoke bombs).

Thoughts? Do we need a few SCRAPS?