Update on Sony’s Supply Chain Challenges and Cost Reduction Needs

February 8th, 2010

Note:  The following posting can also be viewed and commented upon in the Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert Community web site.

About a year ago, Sony Corporation initiated a massive corporate restructuring after announcing its first annual loss in more than 14 years. Sony had a significant profitability crisis which specifically involved its consumer electronics and games businesses and Chairmen and CEO Howard Stringer was forced to take direct operational control of all operating businesses.

In May of 2009, Supply Chain Matters provided a commentary, Sony’s Supply Chain Challenges, in which we noted that the restructuring would involve aggressive cost reduction goals for Sony’s supply chain. Taking on a challenge to reduce overall material costs by 20% in two years has proven to be challenging for companies in profitable times, let alone in crisis situations. I noted that Sony would have no choice but to move quickly, given the economic and industry conditions that were occurring in the consumer electronics sector.

The corporate restructuring included a combined manufacturing, logistics, and procurement organization led by a longtime Sony executive, Yutaka Nakagawa. At the time, various reports indicated that the company would close three plants in Japan by the end of December 2009, and the number of plants around the world would be reduced to 49 from 57. Other efforts noted were that the company would also slash material costs by 20% ($5.3 billion USD), and cut total suppliers to 1200 from the current 2500 by March of 2011.

In a rather sudden and dramatic turnaround of events, last week Sony announced that it has actually turned a profit in its latest fiscal quarter and will narrow its previous full-year loss projections. A Wall Street Journal article notes (paid subscription may be required) that in the area of supply chain, Sony has already cut costs by $3.63 billion USD. That is indeed rather aggressive in such a short period of time. The article further notes that Sony has closed 20% of its manufacturing plants and now eliminated 20,000 jobs, 4000 in excess of last year’s target. In the area of material costs, the WSJ article makes note that Sony has targeted a 15% cost reduction for the PlayStation 3 by March 2011. Currently the company loses six cents for every dollar of PS3 hardware sales.

Upon reading the executive briefing transcript published on Seeking Alpha, there is management acknowledgement that the bulk of the supply chain cost reductions thus far were achieved mainly from top-down senior management directives specifically targeting headcount and excessive inventory levels. Payment terms to suppliers have apparently been extended although it’s difficult to decipher from the transcript. There is also an acknowledgement that no business processes or systems changes have occurred thus far.

The picture for Sony in its first year of crisis has the appearance of top-down, slash and burn cost cutting. While these efforts did result in the required significant take out of cost, the real work related to supply chain process transformation still remains a work-in-process for Sony. This next phase will be more significant in terms of making the right moves to insure that Sony’s supply chain capabilities can sustain both continued efficiency and adaptability to changing business conditions. I trust that Sony’s supply chain teams will utilize more advanced analytical methods in navigating this next phase since we all know that cost cutting alone does not bring the ability to innovate for customer fulfillment needs.

Supply Chain Matters will continue to monitor and provide ongoing commentary.

Bob Ferrari

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

The New NEDA Guidelines on Product Returns Lack Substance

February 5th, 2010

The National Electronic Distributors Association (NEDA) has announced new guidelines regarding product returns concerning electronic parts which, in our view, lack substance.  These guidelines are a long-overdue response to the rapidly growing problem of counterfeit and bogus parts penetrating high tech and national defense related supply chains. NEDA has rightfully acknowledged that a primary source of illegitimate parts lies with the reverse supply chain, and the guidelines were established to help distributors to better validate the return parts process.

Supply Chain Matters commented in November of 2009 on the increasingly widespread problem of counterfeit parts.  Scrupulous players have found that there are more monetary and other incentives for engaging in this activity, more so than illicit drugs or other forms of organized crime.  Criminal laws covering this activity are generally weak. On the buying side, suppliers offering parts and components below current market prices lure buyers into spot buying or new contract arrangements in order to meet cost-reduction goals. Suppliers and other players continue to discover more sophisticated means to alter the composition or stated quality of parts, more often beyond current means to detect such deficiencies. Many of these parts originate from the recycling of discarded electronics that make their way to the China and other Asian destinations, or through various channels for selling or disposing of inventory surplus.

We view this NEDA announcement as encouraging but rather weak in substance. The four page guideline is rather thin on specific controls and mitigation procedures, along with outlining any consequences for those distributors who do not choose to adopt the guidelines.  The document notes that “the most effective way to minimize risk and to ensure receiving authentic parts is to buy through authorized channels”, yet the outlined guidelines only address visual inspection of superficial packaging and verification of purchase orders, which are hardly substantive in insuring audit and control.  There are no guidelines for insuring pedigree or chain of custody regarding parts. The guideline seems to imply that best means to control counterfeiting is to buy from a NEDA member distributor, only.

Readers may recall our December Supply Chain Matters posting noting that the U.S. Department of Defense and other governmental procurement agencies have begun to step-up criminal investigation and indictments related to those suspected of selling counterfeited electronic parts or altering product trademarks.  The U.S. government is clearly serious about enforcement and so should all players residing in industry.

The final note in the NEDA announcement states that: “We want the component manufacturers to also consider their stock rotation/scrap-allowance policies with respect to their authorized supply chain.” That statement is but another acknowledgement that neither NEDA nor the high tech industry as a whole has the alignment or the determination to crackdown on the sources and operators in counterfeit parts. After all, its always the problem of that other entity in the chain.

Bob Ferrari

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Ditto: Another Blowout Quarter for Apple

February 4th, 2010

Note: This posting can also be viewed and commented upon in the Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert Community web site.

One of our most favorite and dare I say most reader popular commentaries on the Supply Chain Matters blog is when we comment on Apple Computer’s quarterly financial and operational results.   It seems that nothing gets in the way for Apple. For the Q1-2010 quarter that ended in December, Apple again impressed.

Apple continues to defy the economy and will surely maintain its number one ranking in everyone’s top supply chain capabilities listing.  The company reported revenues of $15.68 billion, and profits of $3.38 billion in the quarter.  An accounting change allowing Apple to recognize iPhone revenues earlier skewed these results, but nonetheless, the results are an envy of any global consumer electronics manufacturer.  A 58% quarter-to-quarter revenue and nearly doubled profit increase are extraordinary for these economic times.

Unit shipment volumes were again impressive and continue to reflect that Apple’s supply chain fulfillment capabilities stand out as a global benchmark.  Total quarter-to-quarter unit volumes increased over 60%, to over 33 million units shipped. Shipments were fueled by 21 million units of iPods, doubling the September period, and 8.7 million iPhones, a 17.5% from the September quarter.  No doubt, consumers seeking a new iPod or iPhone for the holidays helped to fuel this activity.

In our previous commentary, we noted that Apple was running at a Days Inventory Outstanding (DIO) calculation of 4.48 days and would likely have to gear-up to manage the coming surge in holiday shipments.  Apple indeed increased its overall inventory from $455 million in the September period to $576 million in December, but did so in a highly managed manner. My latest calculation of DIO is 3.36 days which is incredible. The company also generated $5.58 billion in cash during the latest quarter and increased gross margin to 40.9%, more than three points from a year ago.  Apple’s fulfillment capabilities have also expanded globally, and the company reports that 58% of sales are derived from international markets. Recent product teardown analysis also reflects that Apple has also been successful in lowering the material and production costs of both the iPod and the iPhone. With the recent announcement of the new iPad tablet computer, the company is now ramping-up production to begin shipping the unit by March.

In the coming months and years, business schools and supply chain academics will be seeking out business case studies reflecting which companies smartly managed their way through the global recession that began in 2008.  The name of Apple will surely be included in that collection, as one of the few companies that not only grew top-line revenues, but also extraordinarily and efficiently managed a totally outsourced supply chain. At this current rate of growth, Apple will double its revenues and nearly quadruple its profits from 2007 levels by the end of its current fiscal year.

It is no wonder that Apple remains secretive in telling the world about its supply chain business process and IT capabilities. The results speak for themselves.

Bob Ferrari

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Can Lean Manufacturing Backfire?

February 3rd, 2010

Note: The following posting can also be viewed and commented upon within the Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert community web site.

Amidst all of the attention being made to Toyota’s ongoing product recall and sales suspension crisis related to sudden unattended acceleration of certain model vehicles, another interesting question has been posed.  In the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal, reporter Daisuke Wakabayashi penned an article (subscription may be required) noted that lean manufacturing can sometimes backfire.

The premise is that the utilization of common designed parts (i.e. the accelerator assembly) across multiple product models can backfire when major quality control issues arise. Toyota utilized one supplier, CTS Corp., to supply the subject accelerator pedal assemblies.  The argument is that cross-model component sourcing risks are magnified as companies expand globally.  The other premise noted in the article is that growing technological complexity… makes it harder for manufacturers to diagnose problems in the early stages, before the issue becomes more widespread.

My view is to reject this broad argument.

Lean manufacturing methods and common platform designs are a long proven method for insuring cost, as well as quality efficiency.  In fact it was Toyota that led the way in pioneering these efforts.  Common part designs can enhance product quality and cost by allowing product designers to source from approved suppliers with consistent quality and on-time performance capabilities. Lean production methods, when performed correctly, can also spot any quality malfunctions at the source of production, insuring that corrective actions are taken before a build-up of non-conforming parts.

The incident with Toyota, in my view, appears to be more related to a broader feedback loop, one that involves the actual operating use of vehicles and reporting of incidents.  We can all speculate as to when Toyota first became aware of the SUA problem in its vehicles, and what actions were taken to ascertain the scope of such problems.  No doubt, Toyota and certain governmental agencies will be pursuing such investigations.  This has more to do with product management and design than lean manufacturing.

I believe the headline for Toyota is not about the backfire in lean manufacturing, but rather an awareness of both design and supply risk management. This should not be the purview of manufacturing and supply chain, but rather product management and design.

What’s your view?  Do you view this ongoing recall as being exacerbated by lean, or by other shortfalls?

Bob Ferrari

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

One Year After- A Commentary on Governmental Responsiveness to Food Supply Risk

February 1st, 2010

It has been over a year since the late 2008 major product recall incident involving peanut butter and peanut products being produced by the now defunct Peanut Corporation of America.  That incident had multiple cascading effects among quite a number of food-related supply chains.

An article appearing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution indicates that little has changed since this incident.  The article notes that prior to the incident, the state of Georgia had not mandated that food producers test their products.  The State has since passed legislation that calls for regular food testing, and requires Georgia food producers to test their products on a regular basis.  However, Georgia legislators, just before passage, amended the bill in two significant areas.  First, companies could bypass self-testing by submitting a “food safety” plan to the state.  What that plan involves appears to be rather unclear, according to the AJC article. The bill also exempts plants whose end product remains a raw agricultural product.  This includes peanuts, and growers in Georgia represent about 46 percent of the U.S. supply.

On the U.S. federal level, the Food Safety Modernization ACT of 2009 remains stalled in the Senate, after the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill.  This bill had widespread industry endorsement, and a coalition of 18 industry and other groups has written a letter this month to Senate leaders imploring passage of the bill.

To date, no criminal charges have been filed regarding events from the previous incident, and the article notes that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has decided to defer to federal authorities for prosecution.

The media makes note that the current mood among consumers and voters across the U.S. is one of building cynicism in the ability of government to solve problems on a timely basis, and on industry to be able to produce safe products.  I suspect these same concerns are evident in other countries as well.  With noted brand names such As Toyota and others constantly in the news, it is no wonder. 

We should all expect and demand that our food supply has adequate safeguards.  This type of news doesn’t help in building confidence. Industry needs to take a leadership position in insuring product and food supply chain integrity, since reports such as these only add more fire to consumer concerns.

Bob Ferrari

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Infosys- A Continuing Supply Chain Matters Sponsor for 2010

January 29th, 2010

It is a sincere pleasure to announce to Supply Chain Matters readers that the supply chain management (SCM)  practice of Infosys Technologies will be a continuing sponsor of this blog during 2010.  In fact, Infosys has elevated its level of sponsorship, recognizing the increasing reach and influence of Supply Chain Matters, as well as our joint efforts to provide added thought leadership in the area of global supply chain management business process and information technology needs.

The supply chain practice of Infosys continues to be on a roll, providing supply chain clients with the ability to unlock added value from their supply chain business processes and information technology systems.  Key practice areas umbrella a wide swath and include areas of supply chain planning, strategic sourcing/procurement, elements of supply chain execution and enterprise asset management. Industry coverage is broad and includes manufacturing, retail, energy, media and financial services industries.

I first became aware of this practice in late 2005, have monitored their engagement growth since that time, and was delighted to include Infosys as a Supply Chain Matters sponsor in 2009.  During the year, I was invited to contribute guest postings regarding key supply chain and information technology strategic topics on the Infosys Supply Chain Management blog, and was pleased to exchange commentary with Gopikrishnan G.R. (Gopi), delivery manager and head of enterprise solutions and supply chain management consulting, as well as other participants(This cross-blog exchange activity will expand during the coming year and readers can anticipate guest postings and added commentary from Gopi and other Infosys senior consultants on Supply Chain Matters.  I will be attending key Infosys partner conferences in 2010, speaking and interacting with participants and providing live blog commentary, and will continue to be a guest blogger with Infosys.

Today this Infosys practice includes a healthy track record of over 400 supply chain  engagements with a 100% on-time delivery record.  This practice provides clients with unsurpassed project ramp-up capability with over 900  dedicated consultants.who can be called on to provide either functional as well as supply chain information technology expertise.  Delivery centers support a global presence, and currently include India, China, pan- Europe and North America.  Their supply chain technology skills span a variety of ERP and best-of-breed applications, with strategic partnerships that include Oracle, SAP, Sterling Commerce,ATG Commerce, Maximo and other technology alliances.  In 2010, look for Infosys to expand its presence in multi-channel selling, end-to-end order fulfillment and enterprise asset management process capability dimensions.

I am very pleased to have the supply chain management practice at Infosys as a sponsor of Supply Chain Matters and look forward to a continued joint collaboration of thought leadership and industry commentary. 

If you need additional information, you can view the Infosys SCM services profile in our About Our Sponsors page on the right-hand panel. Insure that you have Infosys on your short-list of large-scale supply chain information technology consulting needs.

 Bob Ferrari

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Supply Chain Matters Q4-2009 Quarterly Newsletter Now Available

January 29th, 2010

Starting in 2009, I initiated the Supply Chain Matters Quarterly Newsletter as a supplement to this blog.  The newsletter is designed to provide a broader analysis of our daily and weekly blog commentaries, with a more reflective perspective on this past quarter’s events and their implications across global supply chains. The Q4 2009 Newsletter was distributed this morning, so please check your email inbox to access your copy.

Four prominent themes dominated the events from October through December of 2009:

  • The performance of supply chains leading up to the 2009 holiday buying season.
  • Significant blockbuster acquisition events directly involving supply chain transportation and industry analyst advisory services
  • Preparing for 2010 supply chain business and process challenges
  • More significant incidents of supply chain risk

If you did not receive your copy, or would like to be added to our newsletter distribution list, please send an email with Newsletter Request on the Subject line, and include the following information:

 Your Name

 Company

 Position

 Email Address

You can send your request to the following mail address:

info@ (at sign) supply-chain-matters dot com.

Also as a reminder, our free research report outlining 2010 Predictions for Global Supply Chains is also available by sending a request to the above mentioned email address.

 Thanks

Bob Ferrari- Executive Editor

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Salami Recall Has Supply Chain Risk Implications

January 29th, 2010

It seems that I am far too often penning Supply Chain Matters postings related to product contamination and supply chain risk.  I sometimes get asked why so many postings relate to this topic.  The short answer is that the occurrences of incidents are just growing and growing, and implications to food related and other regulated supply chain are rather troubling. They also point to a continuing trend that outbreaks of food contamination are not being traced in a timely manner.

The latest highly visible incident involves the voluntary recall of over one million pounds of ready-to-eat varieties of Italian sausage products involving Daniele International Inc. of Pascoag and Mapelville Rhode Island.  The brands involved are rather noteworthy for their image of quality, and include Boar’s Head, Black Bear and Dietz & Watson brands. The recalled products may be contaminated with Salmonella. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and The Center for Disease Control are jointly conducting an investigation regarding the source of the outbreak. To date, 189 persons across 40 U.S. states have been identified as being infected with illness, with incidents being tracked thus far back to July of 2009  A dedicated web site has been established by the CDC to provide public information regarding this recall.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the FDA has become involved because of an ongoing investigation of a multi-state outbreak of Salmonella Montevideo illnesses, which have thus far been traced to Daniele.  The Montevideo strain is noted as a somewhat common strain of salmonella infection, and is the same strain found in the 2009 incident involved in the pistachio nut recall.  It is however different from the Typhimuriam strain involved in the peanut butter paste recall that occurred roughly one year ago.

According to a public statement  provided by Danielle International, the potential culprit may be the cracked pepper utilized to coat the meat products.  The manufacturer notes that it has switched suppliers and will now use irradiated pepper, which is pepper that is treated with high doses of radiation to kill deadly bacteria.  While government officials have not completely pointed to that conclusion, this development should be of concern to all other food manufactures who utilize cracked pepper in their products.

This ongoing incident could have the same implications as found in the past peanut paste and pistachio nut recall incidents, the fact that the incidents of contamination impact the supply chains of other manufacturers or food providers who are utilizing cracked pepper product.  

Supply Chain Matters issues similar caution, if you have not already, immediately start checking the sources of your cracked pepper supplies, along with their use. Traceability of products is a rather important need at this juncture.

Unlike the ongoing product recall incident concerning Toyota vehicles, Danielle is demonstrating a rather positive outreach with public communication.  An open letter from the President of Sales  of this family operated business notes the concern to resolve this issue in the quickest and safest manner.  We applaud Danielle for this proactive outreach.

Food-related supply chain professionals need to remain focused on insuring that all aspects of the supply chain are constantly audited for ingredient safety and traceability.

 Bob Ferrari

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

JDA and i2 Technologies- déjà vu

January 28th, 2010

Note: The following Supply Chain Matters guest posting is contributed by Guy Courtin

 

It must feel like déjà vu all over again for JDA and i2 Technologies. It’s like the Paul McCartney lyric “You say goodbye and I say hello.” (Hello Goodbye)

However, this time the deal should be consummated, unlike what happened 2 years ago. So what does this mean for the companies, their clients and the market?  In 2008 the deal was one of the worst kept secrets. The financial markets collapse forced JDA to back down from the cash heavy deal in the 11th hour and saw i2 receive a $20million payment from JDA. This time around the new deal was announced early in November 2009 and will close before the end of January 2010 - a much more rapid turnaround with very little rumblings prior to the November announcement. With a different structure - which included debt as well as equity in addition to an alternative options for the deal - this protects JDA and i2 to ensure that the deal would not fall victim to externalities.

 So why goodbye and hello?

What has not changed from 2008 is the acquisition of i2 means that the supply chain market will lose one of the vanguards of the industry. With Manugistics, i2 Technologies created and defined a revolutionary supply chain market in the 1990s. By leveraging advanced technology coupled with the speed and visibility of the web, both companies demonstrated how package applications could be leveraged to allow companies to plan, optimize and execute their supply chain to maximize their returns. The market is saying goodbye to a truly innovative and market shaping company. No need to rehash the details of the rise and subsequent fall from grace for the Dallas based firm, the fact remains i2 was able to bring a level of innovation to the market that will be sorely missed.

We will be saying hello to a new dawn for the supply chain space. A larger JDA - one that owns both supply chain stalwarts - Manugistics and i2 - will offer the market an interesting alternative to challenge Oracle and SAP for supply chain business. The questions remain: how rapidly can JDA integrate i2’s industry expertise, what will happen with the i2 client base and how quickly can the JDA prospects and install base take advantage of the i2 innovation?

Having personally lived through the first aborted attempt, I believe that this time around the transition will be smooth. The reality is the executives of both firms have been planning for this move since early 2008. After the first deal fell through, i2 made no secret of the desire to continue to pursue a suitor. During 2009 i2 continued to shore up its cash position, controlling its costs, not filling in vacant executive positions and withholding any major investments while i2 also went through a round of workforce reduction early in 2009 - most likely culling roles and positions that would be redundant in a larger organization. Unlike in 2008, JDA will be absorbing a firm that has been molded to fit in nicely with the JDA structure.

What about the i2 client base? After the first acquisition attempt, there was much unrest in the i2 client base. This concern is legitimate; however the fact of the matter is what alternatives do these firms have? Turn to their ERP provider? Go to point solution players? Maybe, but the reality is the i2 solution has been so customized for the majority of the large users and the desire to rip and replace these systems does not make business sense. If JDA retains the personnel that support these customers there should be little issue in the short term. The long term road map will determine how much JDA will invest in maintaining the i2 client base.

For JDA prospects and installed customer base, this move should be an exciting opportunity. It will now have access to a number of solutions and innovations that can greatly enhance its businesses. How JDA packages and prices these new solutions will determine how quickly its install base can start leveraging these new tools.

We are saying hello to a new era in the supply chain space, consolidation will continue.  Will Red Prairie merge with Manhattan? Perhaps JDA will pick up the last two large supply chain vendors. Will innovation come from JDA or will the point solution vendors be the ones to carry the torch? This is left to be seen.  My bet is that the last remaining pure play end to end supply chain solution vendors will seek to innovate and carry that torch, however, it will be the smaller vendors to bring innovation to the market. With delivery mechanisms such as SaaS, these small vendors will be able to rapidly bring value to both large and small users - this will make the ability to buy something other than Oracle or SAP easier for companies.

A sad day to see a once formidable i2 disappear as a standalone entity from the market place, JDA should have a better chance of making the larger organization work than the first time around. The question remains - which entity will emerge as the next Manugistics and i2 Technologies when it comes to innovation?

Guy Courtin

Disclosure Statement: Guy Courtin is a former employee of i2 Technologies, and does not hold a financial interest in either i2 Technologies of JDA Software.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

The Toyota Dilemma- Quality, Safety, Profit and Risk Mitigation

January 28th, 2010

Needless to say, Toyota has managed to capture the complete interest of its customers, and the stakes are extremely high for the company, and potentially its supply chain partners.  I refer to the ongoing unintended acceleration problem relative to certain Toyota vehicles.

Existing Toyota owners are justifiably concerned about their safety in driving such vehicles, and very typical of these types of incidents, clear answers are not yet evident. If one attempts to sort through all of the information that may be related to the specific problem at hand, it becomes rather confusing.  Initially, this alleged problem was attributed to floor mats that were jamming the accelerator pedal.  Now it seems that the root-cause investigation has widened to other potential causes.

My commentary is going to focus on the global supply chain risk implications stemming from this ongoing incident.  In my view, what makes this particular situation so difficult is that Toyota is dealing with a problem that seems to have a lack of clarity in terms of root-cause, and significant implications if not managed smartly. 

Supply Chain Matters has not been alone in making observations over these past months on perceptions that Toyota may have stretched its resources a bit too thin, and that quality was slipping. In my commentary in early December I observed that a multitude of major product recall incidents have tarnished the company’s previous stellar reputation as a producer of reliable vehicles.  The effects of nearly two years of global recession, coupled with some business missteps, has also had a severe impact on Toyota’s sales growth and lack of profitability. Since that time, I, along with other Toyota owners have become increasingly concerned about the reported incidents of unintended sudden acceleration of select Toyota models.

On Monday evening, when I received email alerts related to the announcement that Toyota had suspended all new vehicle U.S. sales of models subject to the ongoing latest recalls, I immediately knew that this event was going to be unprecedented in terms of scope.  As I pen this post it seems that the entire Internet and international media are running with all sorts of articles, reports and commentaries.  Vehicles subject to recall have now been extended to Europe and China.

The clearest explanations as to the potential causes I’ve found thus far come from an AP story published on msnbc.com.  This article notes that Toyota is telling governmental agencies that it thinks that a friction problem in its accelerator pedal mechanisms may be to blame.  CTS Corporation of Elkhart Indiana, the supplier that produces the accelerator assemblies for Toyota states in a press release issued on its web site that the friction problem accounts for just a few cases of stuck accelerators. The vendor notes that its products are not implicated by the November 2009 Toyota recall, but further states “that CTS has been actively working with Toyota for awhile to develop a new pedal to meet tougher specifications from Toyota.” 

Other experts express other various opinions ranging from complicated electronic sensors to a multiplicity of different factors.  Separately, Ford Motor Company has halted production of its full-sized commercial vehicles manufactured by its joint partner in China, Jiangling Motors Co., after discovering that the accelerator pedals it uses came from CTS Corporation.  Ford CEO Alan Mullaly noted in an interview on CNBC that while Ford had not noted any incidents of unintended acceleration, it was erring on the side of caution.

CTS supplies similar accelerator parts for Honda, Nissan and Mitsubishi Motors, but it appears that these three other automakers have received no complaints about the operation of accelerator pedals.

All of these issues should have been mitigated long before visibility reached global proportions. Why haven’t Toyota engineers been able to definitively correlate repair, warranty and customer feedback incidents for so any months? Why is CTS actively working on a tougher specification if the accelerator problem is termed limited in nature?  Without definitive explanations of root-cause or solid action plans, customers are left with massive doubt and lingering negative perceptions. 

In short, Toyota ’s dilemma spanning dimensions of quality, safety, profitability, supplier loyalty and risk mitigation all rolled together in one very visible looking glass.

If there were any doubts about how important supply chain risk has become, stay tuned to this evolving story involving an icon of quality and dependability.

Bob Ferrari

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Furl
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • PlugIM
  • Pownce
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati