Background

The book Supply Chain Brutalization, by Walt Grishcuk is really quite educational as to many aspects of contract manufacturing, but one aspect of interest is how badly they are often treated by OEMs. First is that CMs are paid very little by OEMs. First its important to consider how little CMs are paid. For instance, while Foxconn employs around 1/2 as many people as Wal-Mart, they have only 15% of the revenue of Wal-Mart (although as the Chinese currency is undervalued by roughly 1/2, on the basis of purchasing power parity, we might adjust this value up to 30%). Although Foxconn has roughly a 3.7% profit margin, which is quite common in the CM industry. There are many reasons the profit margins are so low for CMs, but some of the profit is simply stripped out by OEMs. This done both through the contract negotiations, but also on how the CMs are forced to hold inventory when things are slow, but are not compensated for this. As pointed out by Walt Grishuck, poor planning by the OEM can be pushed to the CM. In fact, many OEMs use “lean” terminology

There are several ways to achieve cost reductions. Earlier we mentioned the brutal ways in which SCI was tormented each quarter by Racal. Is it safe to say that they would not have achieved the price points if they weren’t so tenacious? Yes. But, look at the total costs, including the loss of revenues, which also occurred due to poor execution of the team and the resultant lack of desire of the CM to service them (business at a loss). Then add the costs associated with moving their manufacturing to a new supplier.

We now operate in a brutal environment where the OEMs look for the company that can produce the products that will pass inspection for the lowest cost. This results in the sourcing of manufacturing in places that have the lowest labor rates, sometimes less than humane treatment to its work force, and the least amount of regulations on how the enterprise operates in its community or affects its environment.

It’s very difficult to see how “collaboration” can occur in such an environment. However, the concept of mistreating suppliers and then asking them to enter information in a collaboration system is all too common. Poor treatment of suppliers not only reduces collaboration, but also reduces the incentive for sophisticated supply chain planning. It’s interesting that so few books discuss this topic, but Walt’s is one that does, and does so in a very honest fashion. No doubt it won’t sell as well as books that describe “21st century based collaboration,” because most readers prefer fantasy over reality, and a simple story-line that  only discusses the upside. This is the approach of many consulting companies as well. Sell the dream.

References 

“Supply Chain Brutalization: The Handbook for Contract Manufacturing,” Walt Grischuk, BookSurge, 2009

{ 0 comments }

Background

Of the many different aspects of “lean,” one that is generally not mentioned is that it can be used as a philosophy and a hammer to make suppliers pay for the mistakes of the OEMs. As OEMs are more powerful than contract manufacturers, this power in the supply chain can translate to what amounts to profit shifting.

Lean at Motorola? 

The book “Supply Chain Brutalization: The Handbook for Contract Manufacturing,” describes how Motorola used the cover of “lean practices” to transfer inventory to one of their contract manufacturers.

And let’s not believe that the OEM is all knowing and the teacher of best practices.

The mighty Motorola itself with Six Sigma, Motorola University, EDI order exchange, etc., divested a manufacturing facility to a local large EMS (Electronic Manufacturing Service) (A CM with design capability) provider. The business was $7 million per year in a high mix of low to moderate volume.

The CM (Contract Manufacturer) heard it all: they had lot sizes of one, three day manufacturing cycle times, SPC, and a team of just about every type of expert. And everything was built to order. The CM needed to step up.

Then a bill came for hundreds of thousands of dollars to transfer ownership of the balance of the WIP. But there were no orders for the assemblies, which were in various stages of completion throughout the facatory.

“These were the ‘Kan Ban Squares!’ and they needed to be transferred,” insisted Motorola. Now the three day cycle times and miniscule lot sizes started to make sense.

“No thanks,” replied the CM, “We will buy that stuff when there are hard orders for it.”

Lean at Cisco? 

Walt Grischuk brings up the point again of lean used as a hammer against the contract manufacturer in the case of Cisco and Solectron.

The case has been made the Solectron was further weakened by Cisco’s “lean” initiative, where massive amounts of inventory liability were pushed downstream to the supply chain. Companies do this while referring to their victims as their “value chain”

Conclusion

Interestingly, I have never heard of this discussed as a use for lean. However, lean has very little value in supply planning in practical terms. In fact most lean proponents can actually only point to hypothetical scenarios where lean has been beneficial, and most of those are simply borrowed from manufacturing. Lean proponents simply point to manufacturing excellence — attribute it 100% to lean (when in fact there are many factors involved), when in fact there are a variety of reasons for the success of companies like Toyota and Honda, as this article demonstrates.

http://www.scmfocus.com/demandplanning/2011/09/japanese-automotive-advantage-in-forecasting/

In fact, some of the techniques used, such as providing more stable work environments and longer employment, are completely passed over in an attempt control the attribution to lean.

One of the most amazing rationalizations I ever heard for moving to lean was that a company could not perform forecasting properly, even though their products were relatively easy to forecast, and therefore they moved to lean.

References 

“Supply Chain Brutalization: The Handbook for Contract Manufacturing,” Walt Grischuk, BookSurge, 2009

{ 1 comment }

Are Partner Forecasts Trusted?

February 1, 2012

Background Its interesting talking to people about sharing forecasts and using forecasts to drive supply planning. In many conversations it is simply accepted that sharing forecasts is a great idea. Several vendors have built their models around providing the ability to share forecasts. However, the issue which is less often discussed, although known by planners, is [...]

Read the full article →

Why Vendor Managed Inventory Never Made Any Sense

October 23, 2010

Instead of deciding when I need new clothes from Brooks Brothers, perhaps I should give them the right to send me whatever they think I need whenever they feel like it. Background Occasionally I run into things in business that are so idiotic, yet so accepted, that I have to comment on them. One is [...]

Read the full article →

Why Collaboration Projects Are Like Herding Cats

October 23, 2010

This is a fairly standard collaboration project. You can’t hear, but the tan cat is asking the white cat not only to enter data in his supplier collaboration portal, but also to cut his price on the next shipment of goods by 10%. Background Predrag Jakovljevic of TEC Evaluation has an interesting article on CPFR [...]

Read the full article →

How Marketplaces Influenced the Collaborative Aspects of SAP SCM

July 26, 2010

All software begins with an idea. In this post we will discuss the inspirations for some of the more collaborative aspects of SAP SAP. SNC Related to B2B Marketplaces? An interesting question to ask is how SAP’s relationship with Commerce One influenced its Supplier Network Collaboration (SNC) product. At first glance it may be difficult [...]

Read the full article →

Where Are The Supply Chain Collaboration Success Stories?

June 26, 2010

Collaboration software in inherently web based, so why are there so few applications that provide a hosted solution presently? Where Are the Great Collaboration Applications? What is interesting to us is how often supply chain collaboration is discussed, but how infrequently it is actually performed. Furthermore, where is the software. SAP’s SNC offering looks overly [...]

Read the full article →

Exostar and the Advantages of the SaaS Model for Collaboration

June 26, 2010

Collaboration and SaaS In the article on web enabling the supply chain I discussed the importance of using the web to bring higher competitiveness to the monopolistic enterprise software market. http://www.scmfocus.com/supplychaininnovation/2009/05/29/web-enable-supply-chain/ However, related to web enablement is the concept of SaaS or software as as service (aka on demand, hosted solution etc.). I think the [...]

Read the full article →

Flaws in SAP’s Collaboration Technology

June 26, 2010

SAP has been trying to get companies to think collaboratively for some time. However, there are problems with the products offered by SAP that will prevent this from happening. The Direction SAP has been making significant development effort in order to press into the collaboration market, and to generally get more companies to participate in [...]

Read the full article →

Supplier Collaboration with Google Spreadsheets

June 26, 2010

Supplier Collaboration Many companies are currently going through a supplier collaboration software selection process. They are listening to consulting companies that are proposing that one software solution is better than another, has specific capabilities that other do not have, and are attempting to find success stories that can help companies understand how to perform supplier [...]

Read the full article →