A posting on Supply & Demand Chain Executive highlights the results of the 14th annual North American Automotive Tier 1 Supplier Working Relations Index, which is an industry study on the major U.S. and Japanese automotive OEM’s relationships with suppliers. This annual study focuses primarily on OEM’s Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Nissan, Honda and Toyota which currently comprise upwards of 80 percent of U.S. vehicle sales.
This ranking study is rather significant since it ranks purchasing top leadership, buyer behavior and transparency and other factors that lead to perceived positive supplier relationships.
The article highlights that both Toyota and Honda’s efforts to improve supplier innovation and relationships have, once again, gained the upper hand. Both OEM’s are ranked first and second respectively with Honda rated as “most preferred” customer among all OEM’s rated. Honda’s increase was reported to come primarily to improvements in three foundational key areas: supplier relationship, supplier communication, and supplier profit opportunity. “Honda is top-rated with Toyota in paying invoices on time and according to terms, as well as in resolving invoice payment issues. Honda is also tied with Toyota in allowing suppliers to recover material cost increases and in the confidential treatment of proprietary information and intellectual property.”
This author has personal consumer experience on the benefits of such supplier collaboration. Our household recently purchased the latest Honda Accord and it impressed and sold us with its array of on-board technology and driver improvements. Our purchase came after evaluating and test driving most all of the automotive premium brands.
Nissan was noted as second most improved, and took over the third place rating that previously was attributed to Ford Motor Company, which slipped to the fourth position. The article notes: “Significant improvement occurred due to suppliers being given greater flexibility in meeting piece price and tooling objectives, and in Nissan covering sunk costs when programs were delayed or cancelled. Nissan, however, is the least fair, along with Chrysler, in allocating chargebacks to suppliers, but its treatment of confidential proprietary information and intellectual property is significantly higher than Chrysler or GM.”
Of far more significance, General Motors has fallen into last place among the six U.S. and Japanese OEM’s ranked. According to the Supply & Demand Chain report: “The primary reasons for the drop are a decrease in supplier trust, in supplier communication and the amount of help GM provides (or doesn’t provide) to suppliers to reduce cost and improve quality. GM is ranked lowest in protecting suppliers’ intellectual property and proprietary information. GM is also the least likely to allow recovery of material cost increases. As a result, GM is now the least preferred customer of suppliers, in spite of the efforts of the purchasing VP to improve, an example of good leadership, but poor execution by buyers who interface with suppliers on a daily basis.”
In the light of the current blitz of product recalls emanating from General Motors, 29 at last count involving upwards of 15.4 million vehicles, Supply Chain Matters could not help but conclude that the current supplier ranking at the GM recall crisis do not make for a positive mix right now, when supplier responsiveness is the most crucial.
The article further notes that if German auto brands were added to the study, BMW would likely be ranked second overall, while Mercedes would be well below Volkswagen and General Motors. That seemed even more profound.
This study’s authors noted the overall results of this recent supplier relationship survey as history repeating itself. U.S. OEM’s, under new purchasing leadership, made previous significant improvements in supplier relationships, only to once-again, fall back to prior levels. Chrysler’s deterioration has come under the leadership of Fiat, which has aspirations to increase its North American and global presence.
By our lens, the overall takeaway from this latest survey is that core standards that value suppliers in foundational and innovation focused elements remain as differentiators while old ways and practices of beating up suppliers often persist, even after an industry crisis would have provided a motivation to change.
Supply Chain Matters has featured a variety of prior commentaries concerning the current resurgence in U.S. manufacturing. Recently, Al Powell, Vice President of Sales at Serus Corporation called our attention to a WiredYouTube video that features an inside look at Tesla Motors manufacturing facility in Fremont California.
This three minute video takes the viewer inside the predominantly vertically integrated factory that literally transforms coils of sheet metal to fabricated car bodies through automated processes. Tesla’s Model S electrically powered automobile is produced in 3-5 days, starting with rolled sheet-metal to rolling off the assembly line. Included is a look at the totally automated paint and body shop along with the general vehicle assembly line that supports an inside-out process. Notice that some of the advanced robots are able to change their own tools and perform different assorted assembly tasks.
We were fascinated by watching this video. It provides a look at how innovative advanced manufacturing techniques can provide a competitive edge for U.S. based manufacturing. We can just imagine how the proposed Tesla gigafactory will look like.
Readers can view the video by clicking on this web link.
Factory Destruction Across Vietnam: Supply Chain Sourcing Flexibility and Resiliency Has Never Been as Important
In the quest to seek alternative global low-cost manufacturing sourcing across multi-industry supply chains, countries such as Thailand and Vietnam were high on the list. Both offered relatively attractive direct labor wage rates while offering a highly educated and motivated workforce. Up to this point, that has resulted in a steady flow of foreign investment in these countries including internal supply chain ecosystem capabilities.
All of this is now subject to current re-evaluation because of new political and social unrest that is occurring in these countries. The most visible has been Vietnam where this week, anti-China related violence has caused widespread rioting across the country, targeting factories and industrial parks that rioters believe are owned by Chinese interests. This rioting began earlier this week and according to various global media reports has resulted in arson and vandalism involving multitudes of factories and businesses owned by Japanese, Malaysian, South Korean and Taiwanese ownership since rioters have not been precise in targeting.
The protests were apparently prompted by Vietnamese citizen outrage over an oil rig that China placed in a disputed part of the South China Sea. We have read reports of some speculation that the core anger may be more broadly directed at accumulated anger against foreign-based exploitation within the country. The government of China is holding the Vietnamese government responsible for not taking more definitive actions to curb the rioting and damage. A report published by the Wall Street Journal today indicates that upwards of 3000 Taiwanese and 600 Chinese citizens were fleeing the country amid fear of further violence.
While foreign based business people flee Vietnam for fear of personal safety, a large number of factories have halted production because of either damage or lack of workers. Thus, the potential for significant industry supply chain disruption in the automotive, footwear, high tech, consumer goods and other areas is growing each day. It would appear that many brand owners and foreign interests are looking to the government of Vietnam to curb the current building wave of violence and factory destruction and avoid the current situation from quickly moving from the current bad to a far worse situation.
Meanwhile, continued political unrest across Thailand continues to provide an uneasy environment as violent protests continue sporadically across that country. Yesterday, there were reports that at least three anti-government protestors were killed and 22 were injured as government authorities fired guns and lobbed grenades at antigovernment protestors.
Supply Chain Matters has previously noted how significant incidents social unrest has led to a new wave of worker protests within China’s low-cost manufacturing sectors such as footwear. Political tensions involving China and Japan over disputed ownership of islands continue and have both supply and product demand impacts to certain Japan based firms.
From our lens, the notions of global sourcing are beginning to take on a new risk management perspective, that being social, national and political unrest along with the longer-term implications of that unrest. The notions that industry supply chains can continually follow a singular strategy that is solely directed at sourcing in low-cost countries is being challenged, and increasingly requires a re-evaluation. Global sourcing now includes far more considerations beyond the cost of direct labor, and as we have continually noted, are now taking on social, political and employer of choice perception aspects. The ramifications apply not only to product brand owners, but to industry supply ecosystems.
We believe that these incidents are not isolated and business and supply chain teams need to focus on much broader trends and their implications in access to foreign markets and supply chain ecosystems. The need for supply chain sourcing flexibility and resiliency has never been as important as it is now becoming. Insure that your firm and its supply chain strategies are prepared to manage among these new challenges and needs.
© 2014 The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group LLC and the Supply Chain Matters blog. All rights reserved.
Join the Upcoming Webinar: The Importance for Tightly Integrating Product and Supply Chain Management
Because of rapid advances in product innovation and advanced technology, products have become more sophisticated and incorporate broader combinations of physical hardware, software and associated services. This invariable adds more challenges for product design and management teams, especially when key aspects of a product’s value-chain are part of a predominately outsourced supply chain. In a Supply Chain Matters commentary published in mid-April, we brought forward current day evidence that the linkages from product design and management directly to the manufacturing floor, and the broader multi-tiered value-chain network have got to be stronger than ever because the clock speed of industry change requires less information latency and more responsiveness.
This author will be the primary speaker in an upcoming webinar sponsored by Serus on Wednesday, May 28 at 11:00am PDT. The title of my presentation is: The Increasing Importance for Tightly Integrating Product Design and Supply Chain Management. This presentation will address converging trends in business, supply chain and manufacturing, as well as IT and will address the new opportunities to leverage product management and timely new product introduction practices on an end-to-end B2B platform.
Questions I will address in this interactive webinar presentation will include:
• What exactly are the converging forces in Product Design and Supply Chain Management for today’s manufacturers?
• What learnings can be derived from the recent Boeing, Toyota, and GM product recalls?
• How should a product brand owner harness today’s converging trends to it’s obtain industry competitive advantage?
There is time allowed for webinar viewers to ask additional questions. Join us in the complimentary no-cost webinar by registering at this designated Serus webinar link.
Bob Ferrari, Founder and Executive Editor
On Sunday, this author flew to Nashville Tennessee to both attend and moderate a panel discussion at the annual Supply Chain World North America and Global Member Meeting 2014 conference sponsored by the Supply Chain Council. Supply Chain Matters will share highlights from that conference in an upcoming commentary. Flying provides the opportunity to catch-up on reading, and for this author, my prior unread issues of The Economist magazine. Two specific articles with a common theme captured my interest and I wanted to share such observations with you in this commentary.
At the many industry conferences I get the opportunity to attend, I often hear supply chain leaders speak to accelerated clock-speed of product innovation, and how that can add additional challenges and potential havoc for the end-to-end supply chain, particularly when that supply chain is significantly outsourced. For a supply chain that is primarily supporting product innovation, a major industry product shift has significant implications.
The April 5th edition of the The Economist featured the article: General Motors’ woes: What do you recall? (paid print and digital subscription) The article notes that automobile design has become far more complex with thousands of mechanical and electronic parts. If you have acquired a new vehicle in the past three years, you probably have experienced the availability of so many new electronic-based systems such as in-car navigation, satellite radio, in-car diagnostics, and powered operational components and, of course, prompted service reminders. Couple the increased product innovation with supply chain and manufacturing strategies that leverage common global platforms sharing common parts components, and the potential effects of a product recall can be significantly magnified. In the specific case of General Motors, the article states that what appeared at the surface to be a routine recall of 800,000 older models due to a faulty ignition switch has turned out to be anything but. As many of you have been reading in business and mass media, that initial product recall has increased to upwards of 26 million vehicles because the ignition design was shared within so many other models. The Economist authors opine that despite a growing list of reported crashes and human injury, a part that likely costs a few dollars at most now involves significant potential monetary expense for GM. Further stated: “A small part can do great harm if bad publicity leads to reputational corrosion, lost sales and litigation, which in America can include hefty punitive damages.” The article authors point out that carmakers need to spot trends in warranty repairs across global regions in far more timely manner and be able to more quickly respond to these indicators. While the terms of GM’s exit from bankruptcy provided immunity to lawsuits involving products produced prior to bankruptcy, GM will likely have to compensate injured parties to avoid a reputational impact to its product brands.
As noted in a previous Supply Chain Matters commentary related to the GM ignition switch recall, another industry backdrop concerns the Toyota agreement to pony-up a $1.2 billion criminal penalty settlement with the United States Justice Department after acknowledging that it misled consumers regarding unintended acceleration problems (SUA) that occurred from 2009 through 2011. That in the view of many will force automakers to be even quicker to declare a product recall for fear of punitive consequences.
A second article concerning a different industry provides yet another edge to product innovation and its impact on an industry supply chain. Many first-time global-wide smartphone consumers care less about brands and more about price. The Economist article titled: The rise of the cheap smartphone, points out that because the cost of making smartphones has declined so quickly, newer or existing market players can now acquires standardized processors and other components to offer smartphones priced below $80. Some of the brands mentioned are France based Wiko, Micromax and Karbonn in India and Symphony in Bangladesh. The article cites an analyst at IDC indicating that shipments of smartphones priced below $80 more than quintupled, and devices priced under $100 make up one-sixth of the current market. “Two years ago, while the median price of a smartphone was $325. Last year it was $250. This year it may be $200.”
With Apple and Samsung are noted as the only market providers making money, the implication is how long will this continue. Then, there has to consideration to last weekend’s announcement from Amazon indicating that it will enter the market with its own branded competitively priced smartphone. That has set-off additional industry tremors.
If your supply chain exists in this segment, these quickly changing dynamics have implications for supply chain strategy, specifically how the supply chain will be called upon to either differentiate the brand, or drive even more scale and volume efficiencies.
The reading of both of these timely articles reinforced for this author that the linkages from product design and management directly to the manufacturing floor and the broader multi-tiered B2B value-chain network have got to be stronger than ever because the clock speed of industry change requires less information latency and more responsiveness. Stay tuned for an upcoming announcement regarding my participation in a webinar addressing this area in more detail.
General and business media has provided much amplification of the latest product recall troubles involving General Motors. In the past few weeks GM has recalled upwards of 6.3 million vehicles globally for quality issues related to faulty ignition switches, a sudden loss of electric power-steering assistance and other issues. The incidents have once again raised issues as to why certain automotive manufacturers allow quality conformance issues regarding products to fester until consumers experience the results of such non-conformance, or in some cases suffer personal injury or death. The GM crisis has been billed as the first test of the leadership of newly appointed CEO Mary Barra, who just happens to have a supply chain, product and operations management career background prior to assuming her new top leadership role. Indeed this latest crisis might have been the legacy handed over from previous GM CEO’s. Given Ms. Barra’s background, Supply Chain Matters has confidence that this CEO will eventually insure that GM identifies the root causes that have led to these issues, including product design flaws, organizational culture, supplier related quality conformance, conflicting performance metrics or just plain bureaucracy and overhead.
But alas, GM is not the only automotive OEM that will be skewered by general and social media. Today, Toyota announced that it was recalling upwards of 6.4 million vehicles consisting of five different product recalls. The recalls involve 27 globally based vehicle models and are reportedly prompted by defects involving seat rails, air bag cable connections, engine starters, steering column brackets and windshield wiper motors. Did we mention a repair parts crisis as well?
The latest recalls appear just a few weeks after Toyota agreed to pony-up a $1.2 billion criminal penalty settlement with the United States Justice Department after acknowledging that it misled consumers regarding unintended acceleration problems (SUA) that occurred from 2009 through 2011. In 2012, Toyota had to take a $1.1 billion charge after reaching agreements with customers over liability lawsuits related to the prior SUA incidents.
But the track record of Toyota product recalls continued after the SUA debacle. In October of 2012 Toyota announced the global recall of 7.43 million vehicles, the equivalent number involved in the SUA incidents, this time related to a master power window switch defect. At the time, The Washington Post was quick to note that this flaw “raises questions about whether Toyota Motor Corp. has solved quality and safety issues that embarrassed the company in 2009 and 2010.” Also at the time, The Financial Times indicated in its reporting that Toyota was aware of the master window switch problem as far back as four years prior. It further indicated that Toyota did not respond sooner because it was unable to replicate the root cause. Somewhat of a familiar theme to the current GM ignition switch saga.
Supply Chain Matters readers will further recall that Toyota announced a series of major organizational changes to insure that accountability for quality among its vehicles was more transparent, including the empowerment of geographic based Chief Quality Officers that had the power to investigate and correct any quality issues. Our Supply Chain Matters commentary in January 2013 called into question the cost of Toyota’s anointment as global automotive industry leader. In a Financial Times interview in 2013, Toyota Motor USA CEO Jim Lentz indicated that the company had strengthened its customer care functions and had much greater ability to analyze data related to emerging quality problems. Lentz noted Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda as urging: “Make sure that we still are built on a solid foundation of quality, reliability and value because that is the hallmark of the company.” In essence, that was the declaration of the core business value of the company.
Which of these two different OEM incidents is the more significant indicator of a systemic process issue?
From our lens, a comparison of GM’s current quality crisis pales in comparison to that of Toyota, since the global industry leader has had more time and singular senior management attention to correct systemic process issues involving product quality, whether they involved the supply chain, or Toyota’s own product design or quality conformance.
Since both of these OEM’s remain in the race for global volume leadership, the price to the brand and of consumer brand loyalty we posed in 2013 is again an open question. Each of their supply chain ecosystems will again be forced to rally and respond to crisis and disruption to insure new and revised parts are made available to dealers, distributors and assembly lines.
The race to the top invariably comes with a price, and at least two automotive supply chain ecosystems will continue to feel the effects of the vortex.
Time for our readers to weigh in: by your view, which of these two ongoing automotive OEM quality crisis developments are the most troublesome for the industry? Share your view in either the Comments area associated to this posting, or if you prefer, email them to info <at> supply-chain-matters <dot> com.