There has been a new development regarding the ongoing large number of product recall activities involving suspected automobile defective airbag inflators produced by supplier Takata Corporation.
The Associated Press is reporting that rival Japan based airbag inflator supplier Daicel Corporation announced last week that it will accelerate the building of a second U.S. factory in Arizona to meet the growing demand for alternative capacity for these components. This supplier, responding to specific requests from Honda Motor for an alternative supplier, and expects to start operating the Arizona facility by March of 2016. According to this report, Daicel has further plans to increase production of inflators at its existing factory in Western Japan to supply additional replacement parts later this year.
This is an obvious sign that alternative component supply arrangements are being initiated as Takata continues to struggle in resolution of current component needs.
A Sudden CEO Leadership Change at Honda and Another Reinforcement of the New Product and Operations Grounded CEO
In the wake of continued challenges involving quality glitches and mass product recalls, Honda Motor Company announced today that is current CEO will step-down in June to make way for a new breed of leadership.
Takahiro Hachigo, a trained engineer and currently a managing officer within China, will replace Takanobu Ito as president and CEO in late June. Mr. Ito has led Honda since 2009, at the height of the global recession.
According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal, this executive leadership change comes at a critical juncture for Honda, which is being challenged by Nissan Motor for the number three brand leadership for the U.S. market, and amid continued product recall actions involving airbag inflators produced by supplier Takata Corporation. Honda has been one of the brands most affected by the defective airbag inflator quality crisis, and in October, top executives took on salary cuts to demonstrate responsibility for quality problems.
Reportedly, company insiders were taken by surprise by the timing of this announcement, and the choice of a younger executive promoted over those executives expected to be considered as the next Honda CEO. The global auto company further indicated that several directors who ranked higher than Mr. Hachingo would retire. In a released statement, Mr. Ito stated: “Honda is ready to make a new leap forward. To do this, Honda needs to be led by a new, younger team.”
Mr. Hachigo’s experience includes stints in product design, production operations, and procurement, which provides yet another example of a trend for new senior management appointments involving executives with product and supply chain management prowess. According to Honda’s announcement, Mr. Hachigo’s previous experience includes roles as a vice-president of Honda Motor Technology- China, representative of development, purchasing and production- China, president and director of R&D in Europe, general manager of the Suzuka manufacturing facility production operations , general manager of purchasing and vice-president of R&D in the Americas.
This resume adds further evidence of the new importance of global-based experience, including operational experience within China.
In December of 2014, BMW appointed new replacement CEO Harold Kruger, with a background in operations, engineering and manufacturing. A year earlier, General Motors rocked the global automotive industry by appointing the first ever female CEO, Mary Barra, who had risen through the GM ranks in roles in manufacturing, engineering, product design and other leadership positions. Mrs. Barra has since experienced a baptism of fire involved in GM’s massive product recall incidents.
This trend extends beyond the automotive industry, with product management and supply chain experience in the current CEO’s of Apple, Home Depot, McCormack Foods and other firms large and small.
There is an adage that one data point is interesting, two consistent data points are more interesting and three or more consistent data points is obviously a sign of a trend. For the global automotive industry, the new trend for senior management is showing a common denominator for sensitivity and grounding in product design, operations and global supply chain management leadership.
The year 2015 may well be a watershed year as this new generation of product design and operations background CEO’s continue to take the leadership helm. For global supply chain ecosystems across the automotive industry, these are, by our Supply Chain Matters lens, encouraging signs.
© 2015, The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group LLC and the Supply Chain Matters blog. All rights reserved.
Supply Chain Matters provides a brief update to our previous commentary regarding Apple’s reported potential development of an electric powered car. More information has come to public light, information pointing to development of advanced battery component capabilities for larger applications.
Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal echoes a published report from Reuters that A123 Systems, a lithium-ion battery developer and producer is in the process of filing suite with Apple for what that company alleges as “an aggressive campaign to poach employees.” The compliant names five employees that have defected to Apple or appear to be in the process of recruiting other existing A123 employees to join Apple.
According to the Reuters report: “Apple has been poaching engineers with deep expertise in car systems, including from Tesla, Inc., and talking with industry experts and automakers with the ultimate aim of learning how to make its own electric car, an auto industry source said last week.” In its reported lawsuit, A123 believes Apple aims to build a competing battery business partially relying on the expertise from its former employees. The employees in question, who initially joined Apple in June of last year, were reported to be working of A123’s most critical projects, and by joining Apple, they violated their employment agreements.
Neither Apple nor A123 have responded to both media outlets in requests for confirmation.
A123 was initially funded in-part by a research grant in 2009 from the U.S. government as part of a broad economic stimulus program as a result of the severe recession at the time. A123 Systems, who was awarded a $249 million matching, grant to construct world class lithium-ion battery manufacturing facilities in the U.S., and Johnson Controls was awarded a similar amount to deploy advanced battery supply capabilities. A123 had been previously designated by Chrysler as its prime battery supplier, while Johnson Controls, in a joint venture with France’s SaftGroupe, was previously chosen to be a primary battery supplier to Ford Motor Company. Later however, A123 ran into a number of business challenges and had to file for bankruptcy in 2012.
These notion reinforces the speculation that we raised in our previous commentary, namely that if Apple has serious intent to produce electric cars, it needs to invest in product design and manufacturing sourcing of batteries.
Business media including the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal reported last week that Apple was working on a secret research lab (not so secret anymore) possibly directed at developing a concept electric car. According to these reports, under the code name “Project Titan” Apple has several hundred employees working at this research lab designing a concept vehicle that resembles a minivan.
Apple, of course, has declined comment to any of these publications.
According to the published WSJ report, the size of the project team and the senior executive hires are indications of seriousness, with Apple CEO Tim Cook approving the development project almost a year ago. Once more, the report indicates that Apple executives have flown to Austria to meet with contract manufacturers. The publication names the Magna Steyr unit of Canadian auto parts supplier Magna International as one potential party involved.
The report accurately notes that manufacturing an automobile is enormously expensive with a single plant costing upwards of well over $1 billion. Thus, it should be of little surprise that Apple might be investigating existing contract manufacturing options.
Auto supply chain teams know all too well that sourcing production in any particular country and transporting autos among global regions can be an expensive proposition without volume and market scale. It’s clearly not the same as shipping iPhones and iPads or for that fact, ramping-up new product and supply chain labor resources to coincide with a product development lifecycle. Once more, intellectual property (IP) protection becomes a larger consideration because of the nature of the multiple components and new technologies that may be involved. For electric powered vehicles, the design and production cost of the batteries is the single most important material and product margin component.
Another parallel that these reports bring forward is that if Apple becomes serious in pursuing this foray into electric cars, it will likely be a competitor to Tesla Motors, who has been pursuing a vertical integration strategy including the design and production of its own electric storage batteries for automotive and solar energy storage use. Tesla elected to invest in a former Toyota auto factory located in Fremont California.
Certainly, there will be continued speculation as to what Apple ultimately decides to do. However, in the light of our previous Supply Chain Matters challenge to Apple to invest more in U.S. or North America based production, Project Titan could provide the opportunity to consider such an investment commitment, either contract manufacturing or owned manufacturing investment. North America automotive production plants and their associated supply chains have proven world class competitiveness and indeed are exporting vehicles to global markets.
However, in light of our previous commentary noting excess auto production capacity across China, Apple may elect its familiar new product introduction and contract manufacturing model.
Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports that both domestic and foreign-based auto producers continue to build and subsequently bring online more auto production capacity across China. The report cites a projection that by 2017 there will be 140 auto production plants in China vs. the 123 existing at the end of 2014. The problem, however, is that China’s nationwide domestic auto consumption is far short of this capacity indicating that overcapacity is expected to worsen. Cited is an IHS Automotive chart indicating that China’s excess capacity has jumped 83 percent in the last two years. The article cites a JSC Automotive forecast that by 2017, auto plants across China will be able to produce 11.4 million more cars than are expected to be sold.
The report cites one Shanghai based consultant as indicating that some carmakers are regretting plans to expand plant capacities, but decisions have already been made. Once more, as Supply Chain Matters readers all well aware, China’s domestic market remains an open opportunity for future growth, but the continued battleground pits China’s domestic brands against foreign based nameplates. The obvious consequence is that there is not enough product demand to sustain all manufacturers, and that has the potential for industry consequences.
Production overcapacity is a common problem in China in many industry and commodity sectors and the results have been messy or sometimes ugly consequences. An ongoing overcapacity condition remains for the production of steel. According to Bloomberg, already, car dealerships across China are seeking more financial assistance and lower sales volume targets. China’s domestic consumers will obviously gain more buyer benefits over time.
Europe’s automotive industry has a similar overcapacity challenge since prior to the 2008-2009 global recession, there was already too much industry-wide capacity, and that remains an ongoing challenge.
With China and Europe reflecting overcapacity, global automotive OEM’s must continue efforts to balance global consumption and supply as well as protect margins. Currency headwinds are yet another challenge.
Supply Chain Matters would not at all be surprised by the entry of Chinese produced autos in the U.S. as well as other emerging markets over the next three years.
Last week, we were reading a recent report produced by the Chartered Institute for Procurement and Supply (CIPS) in the U.K. indicating that its risk index reversed in Q4-2014 and reached a nine month high. According to this report:
“The world opened up for procurement managers in Q4 2014 with an abundance of cheap oil and gas making suppliers in far flung corners of the world instantly more competitive. Combined with low commodity prices in everything from gold in Ghana to soy beans in Brazil, manufacturers at the top of the global supply chain have grown the complexity and length of their supply chains whilst reducing their input costs.”
Now, there are multiple business and general media reports of the severe toll that is cascading from the continuing backlog of ships destined to U.S. west coast ports that cannot be unloaded and reloaded on a timely basis. The latest news this weekend is that President Obama has dispatched the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, to California in an attempt to broker an agreement.
Today, a Reuters syndicated report featured on Business Insider provides ample evidence of the rippling effects beyond retail focused supply chains. Honda Motor now indicates that it is slowing production at certain North America auto assembly plants because component parts in the replenishment pipeline are now impacting the production of this OEM’s Civic, CR-V and Accord models. Similarly, Fuji Heavy Industries, producers of Subaru cars indicates that it is already air freighting parts to U.S. factories through at least the end of this month.
An AP syndicated report featured on business network CNBC indicates that in addition to car parts, imported furniture, medical equipment, bathroom tiles, shoes and other goods are all impacted. On the export side, meat, produce and other agricultural foods are not moving to Asia destined markets and are in danger of spoilage.
No doubt, the cumulative impact across industry supply chains will be in the billions of dollars if the current labor dispute is not resolved quickly.
Further reported is that the port crisis is impacting available capacity and shipping rates for both sea and air freight, making it even more expensive to implement contingency shipping and logistics plans. Air freight capacity originating from China and the Asia-Pacific region was reduced in 2013-14 due to declining demand and increased costs. Thus, the current surge in contingency shipping demand is chasing limited supply, and no doubt, bigger more influential shippers will be garnered preferential services.
As is often the case with these types of multi-industry supply chain crisis, small and medium businesses will bear the bulk of the economic burden.
Within the U.S. itself, a current period of severe winter weather featuring unprecedented snowstorms and extreme cold weather have paralyzed the U.S. northeastern and Midwest regions and its economies, adding more economic burden.
Tomorrow (Tuesday), west coast dockworkers are supposed to return to work. All industry eyes are affixed on a speedy and final resolution of the current crisis. Amen to that!
Industry supply chain teams do not need to concern themselves with supply chain risk indices for this quarter and beyond. They will be off the charts and indeed, the perception of global supply chain risk will be at an all-time high.
Today, sensing and real-time awareness across the end-to-end global supply chain network as to where inventory resides and the daily condition of global transportation networks and contingency plans is far more important. The current crisis will continue to worsen before it gets better.
Longer-term, once the current U.S. west coast port labor contract is resolved, shipping industry interests had better get their acts together and figure out solutions to a number of current industry choke-points and structural deficiencies. Larger mega container ships will not address the needs of shippers for reliable and efficient logistics and transportation.
The notion of the flexibility and/or cost effectiveness of global supply chains has reached a critical crossroad.