In our recently unveiled 2017 Predictions for Industry Supply Chains (Available for complimentary downloading in our Research Center), we elected to include Consumer Packaged Food (CPG) and Beverage supply chains in our industry-specific predictions. We have included this industry in our industry-specific predictions for the past three years and already, industry dynamics of activist investors surrounding the industry are once again underway, and the supply chain stakes are becoming far higher and likely destructive.
Consumers have not wavered in their more health-conscious view of food and beverage consumption and their shopping preferences continue to shun traditional processed foods. They demand healthy food choices containing natural and sustainable ingredients. Throughout 2016, these trends continued to be reflected in the business and financial performance of globally branded food producers who now continue to be challenged in achieving single-digit top-line sales and profitability growth. Global observers such as the Economist question whether the global expansion and presence model has run out of steam because of diminishing financial returns.
As what occurred in 2016, declining profits and meager sales growth continues to spawn activist investors to influence certain CPG, food, and beverage firms to consolidate. The prime disruptor in this industry remains Brazil based 3G Capital and specifically Heinz-Kraft Foods. A report from Fortune describes the 3G Capital playbook as a “meritocracy” that is on track to consume the food industry. The model includes wholesale replacement of an existing senior management team and what is often described as a blitzkrieg of cost cutting predicated on zero-based budgeting tenets. This model is further described in the analogy of a swimming shark with tendencies of buy, squeeze and repeat with the next target.
When 3G acquired Heinz, upwards of 7000 job cuts were initiated while five production facilities were shuttered. Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBITA) improved by 8 percentage points over an 18-month period. Heinz then acquired Kraft in 2015, and reports point to upwards of an additional 5000 in headcount reductions. A recent published Fortune report cites research firm AllianceBerstein as indicating that Kraft-Heinz is already 88 percent towards its goal to cut an additional $1.5 billion in annual costs by the end of this year.
Acquisitions govern growth as opposed to just organic sales growth. The CPG industry is now consumed with the threat of 3G, and as Fortune observes: “The entire food industry is “3G-ing” itself before Kraft-Heinz can do it to the companies.” Fortune writes: “The whole food industry is speculating who’s next.” We concur and we predicted that there will indeed be another major acquisition involving a major branded CPG company in 2017.
Little did we know that it would come so soon and with far broader scope.
Dynamics Already Underway and the Stakes Increase
Last week featured the news of what our prediction included although the target and size was a big surprise. Kraft-Heinz issued a $143 billion acquisition offer for global CPG provider Unilever. While the offer was quickly rejected as insufficient, and subsequently withdrawn, the implications are far larger and once-again reverberating across the industry while all await the next shoe to drop. The Economist headline was: Barbarians at the Plate: 3G Missed Unilever but its methods are spreading.
Within the past few days Campbell Soup and General Mills reported disappointing sales and earnings. Campbell’s cited mistakes in its fresh-foods business unit that included a recent product recall and decision to harvest carrots while they were still small. Late last week, General Mills reported weaker than expected revenues from sales of yogurt and soup along with weakened consumer demand. The firm’s outlook for the remainder of its fiscal year that ends in May is expected to decline by 4 percent.
Today, The Wall Street Journal reported that Unilever is now pivoting from the Kraft-Heinz attempted acquisition with its Board now deliberating on options to deliver greater short-term value for shareholders. That could include the sale of the firm’s current food division or attempting an acquisition of its own in the personal care area.
Meanwhile, speculation abounds as to what will be the next target for Kraft-Heinz. Names such as Mondelez International, Campbell Soup, Coca Cola Company, General Mills, Kellogg, and others are being tossed about.
With such a backdrop, pressures increase on remaining CPG food and beverage companies along with associated food suppliers. By our lens, the survivors are those that embrace innovation and find ways to best accommodate today’s consumer choices.
Industry Supply Chains Buffeted from the Impact
In the middle of such forces are CPG focused industry supply chains that continue to be pressured for additional cost reductions and productivity savings. This will unfortunately, continue and at a more intense pace. At the same time, visionaries continue to believe that the future still comes from process and technology enabled innovation and in sourcing, planning and marketing healthier and more organic food products. Thus, many food supply chains have heavy requirements for continuous new product introductions and in developing distribution strategies that accommodate an entirely different customer fulfillment need. Coupled with that is satisfying consumer needs for visibility into all levels of the food supply chain and specifically where food has originated.
All the above will be the primary agenda for CPG and beverage supply chains in the coming year. The winners are supply chain leaders who educate senior management on the differences of supply chain as a cost center vs. a business innovation enabler. They will also be those that can keep a laser focus on the end-goal, meeting and accommodating far different consumer preferences with changed thinking and distribution methods. Many will need to be equipped to deal with our other 2017 predictions such as responding to the perfect storm in the requirements for skilled supply chain talent across many supply chain, procurement and distribution dimensions along with the needs for advanced technology to support more predictive decision-making.
Bottom-line, the CPG industry remains in a state of defense and apprehension, and by our Supply Chain Matters lens, industry supply chains will pay the inevitable price in needs for further cost and headcount reductions along with blocked efforts to instill added product, process, and resilience to overall business support capabilities.
Stating the Obvious
Sometimes, a blog such as ours needs to be blunt in viewpoint to provoke additional thinking or changed mindset. The wave of activist investors surrounding the CPG food and beverage industry is destructive to supply chain capability and innovation, and the timing could not come at the worse time. CPG industry supply chains and their network of food suppliers require the ability to support a business need for healthier and more organic food choices for consumers. This wave of zero-based budgeting and cost cutting will not likely achieve that objective, and we as consumers, will have limited choices for healthier food. It is a race to the bottom with notions that the survivors gain the spoils.
One must wonder what the end-state really implies, short-term investor rewards or industry supply chains with very little capability to support required process, technology, and product innovation.
© Copyright 2017. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.
As we continue deep dives on the remainder of our 2017 Predictions for Industry and Global Supply Chains, we have fallen behind a bit on some other noteworthy supply chain news and developments. This being Friday, this Editor wanted to catch-up.
One event that we wanted to highlight in this blog was last week’s meeting with U.S. regulators and the disclosure from Samsung of its investigative efforts to seek the root causes of the battery explosions and fires that impacted that firm’s newly announced Galaxy Note 7 smartphone. These incidents caused the recall of all 2.5 million produced Galaxy Note 7’s and the unprecedented decision to suspend all subsequent sales of this model. The irony was that this model phone had received rave product reviews prior to its market release.
According to various published reports, Samsung conducted its investigation with the aide of two independent quality control and one supply chain analysis firm.
The report outlines what many of our readers can relate to as a series of cascading supply chain focused snafu’s. The findings were announced after testing 200,000 devices and 30,000 batteries in a special charging and recharging test facility fitted for the task.
The initial phones released in August were fitted with lithium-ion batteries supplied by Samsung SDI, one of the electronic component subsidiaries of Samsung Electronics. The investigation revealed that the SDI batteries were irregularly sized and there wasn’t enough room between the heat-sealed protective pouch around the battery and its internals. This disparity apparently led to battery shorting, overheating and the subsequent fires.
A secondary supplier of batteries was Amperex Technology which produces its batteries in China. This supplier was originally tasked to supply batteries for the China version of the Note 7. As Samsung began to sense a disturbing pattern of fire incidents related to its initial phones, it recalled the devices while urging Amperex to ramp-up production of more batteries to re-fit customer replacement phones with the alternative Amperex battery.
To the likely frustration of many product focused managers, these second issue phones also experienced battery overheating and fires. The second series of battery fires prompted the decision in October to pull the plug on this model.
The investigation of the Amperex batteries points to manufacturing inconsistencies. According to a posting by Wired, some cells were missing insulation tape, and some batteries had sharp protrusions inside the cell that led to damage to the separator between the anode and cathode. The batteries also had thin separators in general, which increased the risks of separator damage and short circuiting. Wired further provides a detailed review of all the other technical issues brought forward in the investigation and similarly cites a subsequent published report by The Wall Street Journal, reporting that Samsung had misdiagnosed the problem when issuing the first recall.
Samsung reiterated during the press conference that it found no irregularities with phone features that may have “helped” the battery overheating issues. However, the consumer electronics mobile chief, D.J. Koh, half acknowledged some product design process deficiencies:
“To produce an innovative Galaxy Note 7, we set the goals on battery specifications. We now feel a painful responsibility for failing to test and confirm that there were problems in the design and manufacturing of batteries before we put the product out to the market.”
To address regulator concerns as to how Samsung will avoid future incidents, the manufacturer has established a new eight-step process that includes supplemental testing, inspections and manufacturing quality checks, among other measures. As for its own phones, the company is designing a new compartment to give batteries more space inside the phone to avoid damage from physical drops. Koh finished the event by saying that Samsung will share its lessons with the entire industry to improve overall lithium-ion battery safety
But, as we all probably know, major damage has been done to the Samsung brand, and this recall alone will cost the company upwards of $5 billion.
One of the more insightful reports concerning this Samsung recall came from the New York Times. (Metered view) The Times authors posed the question:
“How could such a technologically advanced titan — a symbol of South Korea’s considerable industrial might — allow the problems to happen to begin with?”
Noted was that Samsung, like South Korea as a whole fosters a top-down, hidebound culture that stifles innovation and buries festering problems. Cited is a former Samsung employee who states: “In the Samsung culture, managers constantly feel pressured to prove themselves with short-term achievements. Executives fret that they may not be able to meet the goals and lose their jobs, even when they know the goals are excessive.”
The Times spoke with Samsung officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity while the Note 7 investigation was being completed. Their reported observation was:
“With the Note 7, Samsung pushed its business model, as well as its technology, to the limit… Driven by the desire to prove it was more than a fast follower of Apple, Samsung rushed the Note 7 to market ahead of Apple’s iPhone 7. To fend off Chinese competitors like Huawei and Xiaomi, it packed the phone with new features, like waterproof technology and iris-scanning for added security.”
A further insight:
“Samsung’s insistence on speed and internal pressures to outdo rivals in part signal a breakdown in the ability to truly innovate and push out new ideas, critics say. In place of big new ideas, Samsung focused on maxing out the capability of components like the battery. That philosophy, which worked to keep Samsung on the heels of the likes of Apple, simply is not as effective as Samsung tries to push ahead, they argue.”
As noted in our most previous Supply Chain Matters commentary related to the Note 7 incident, Samsung achieved a significant $5 billion in profitability in its latest quarter. That had more to do with the performance of the Samsung Electronics component businesses as opposed to the Mobile business.
We wonder aloud if the observed flaws in corporate culture and its consequent implication to management’s ability to manage and weigh risk factors will be a lost memory because of its recent financial performance.
Somewhat similar to Volkswagen and its emissions cheating incident, the real question comes down to long-term damage to the brand, and to the ability to recruit talent and leadership willing to make the right decisions for both the business as well as customers and supplier partners.
In the minds of consumers and customers, product and supply chain component integrity and safety trumps all other concerns.
© Copyright 2016. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.
In October of last year, Supply Chain Matters published a blog commentary: Good and Not So Good News When All Eyes Are Focused on Your Supply Chain. Our commentary focused on ongoing developments involving certain commercial aircraft and aerospace industry supply chains, and specifically aircraft engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. We committed to our readers to follow through on this stream of ongoing developments to provide added insights and learning. This week, Pratt parent United Technologies briefed analysts and shareholders on Q4 and 2016 performance and there were even more nuggets of information and learning.
Once again, we alert readers to the overall length of this particular commentary, but we want to make sure that full context is presented.
The commercial aircraft industry remains challenged by conflicting goals. They include the ability to more rapidly scale-up overall aircraft production levels. However, that sometimes conflicts with the industry dynamics of OEM dominants Airbus and Boeing in their respective desires to deliver higher margins, profitability, and more timely shareholder returns.
Smack in the middle of these dynamics are relationships among suppliers, who need to continue to invest in higher capacity, process innovation and capability, but of-late have had to respond to key customer requirements for larger cost and productivity savings. We will have more to state on this dynamic when we get to our 2017 Prediction deep-dive on unique industry-specific challenges for the coming year.
In response for airline industry needs for more fuel-efficient and more reliable aircraft, Pratt has designed and introduced a revolutionary new geared-turbofan (GTF) aircraft engine. However, a series of supply chain glitches and volume production ramp-up challenges directly impacted the aircraft delivery production plans of both Airbus and Bombardier in 2016, causing both final manufacturers to now incur some financial and airline customer consequences of delayed deliveries and unfinished aircraft waiting for the inevitable broken-link in the supply chain. The most visible broken link was Pratt. There are others as well, such as interior seats for new wide-body aircraft, but in this new world of ubiquitous visibility, any one supplier can bear the brunt.
In September, UTC, the parent to Pratt, and specifically CEO Gregory Hayes, warned the conglomerate’s investment community that Pratt will likely miss its 2016 customer engine delivery goals by 25 percent, amounting to a shortfall of 50 engines for aircraft manufacturers. Haynes acknowledged the obvious in that Pratt’s airline customers were not happy with the news. Neither were UTC stockholders who initiated an immediate 2 percent sell-off in the company’s stock. During that time, Haynes briefed analysts and investors on many of the operational details of Pratt’s supply chain challenges which was an obvious indication of high levels of visibility and detailed briefings that the CEO was obtaining.
Also at that time, Hayes indicated that of the approximately 800 parts for the high-level bill of material for the new GTF Pratt engine, five parts were causing the most pain due to supplier challenges in meeting Pratt’s volume production and quality needs. One critical problem was the heart of this new engine, its newly designed aluminum titanium composite fan blade, noted as a breakthrough in material design and expected performance. Initial production yield problems of the fans had averaged an unacceptable 20 percent.
To help our readers follow developments, we reviewed the entire transcript of UTC’s senior management briefing to equity analysts and shareholders regarding Q3-2016 financial and operational performance delivered in October. It seemed obvious to this author, that the bulk of the attention of senior management, and the questions of equity analysts, were centered squarely on Pratt and its supply chain, hence the title of this commentary stream. Regarding Pratt’s delivery challenges, Mr. Hayes emphatically stated: “It’s going to get fixed and it’s going to be fixed this quarter.” He later stated that UTC senior management follows Pratt developments daily, and that four separate initiatives are simultaneously underway related to process and yield improvements, lead-time reductions and additional added capacity. The Pratt operational and supply chain details continued through most of the management briefing, and even more as individual equity analyst’s questions honed-in specifically on more of Pratt and its supply chain challenges.
We can now update this Supply Chain Matters commentary stream with some highlights of this week’s Q4 2016 and year-end investor briefing.
CEO Hayes declared a solid year for UTC in terms of business and financial results. He praised the Pratt division on GTF accomplishments and reiterated that this engine is now powering 46 in-service Airbus A320 neo’s with more than 82,000 operational hours.
For the year, Pratt delivered a total of 138 GTF engines, 62 of which were in the final Q4 quarter. Moving to the question and answer period with equity analysts, we noted seven specific questions related to Pratt, the GTF engine, and the Pratt supply chain. Among the more detailed information that was shared in executive responses:
- On the positive news side, executives stressed that Pratt’s supply chain challenges are in a far better state than that of June last year. Production yields on the critical fan blade are now up to 80 percent production yield, a new partner manufacturing facility begins production this quarter and excellent progress is being made in opening a second facility in Michigan scheduled to begin production at mid-year. Reiterated was that Hayes monitors such numbers from his Pratt division on a weekly basis.
- There have been some issues with GTF in-service reliability, specifically the engine’s combustor liner and an oil seal. Regarding the combustor, issues are related to what was described as harsh operating environments of which India was specifically cited. Hayes indicated a component re-design is underway and will be retrofitted in operating engines later this year. Premature failure of an oil seal was noted as supplier related, with a fix identified with a modified seal available by May. Hayes characterized these issues as “typical of a new product introduction.” Hayes emphasized that the engine’s fuel burn performance metrics are being met right out of the box, its revolutionary designed geared-turbo fan is performing as designed, and again stated his confidence in the Pratt leadership team to resolve any supply chain or component related issues.
- In addressing this year’s production plan for the GTF, Pratt plans to build 350-400 engines, 50 of which, (roughly 7 percent of production) will be designated as spares to support customer uptime while the above described component performance issues are addressed.
- One analyst from Bank of America Merrill Lynch specifically questioned whether this was the fifth iteration of the combustor design. Hayes emphasized that not all airline operators are experiencing combustor performance issues, only those in harsh operating environments. The overall timeline for the combustor seal was described as three design iterations. The first 17 engines had the first design which Pratt was aware had to be upgraded because of durability issues. The ‘B” version was described as not having met expected life in harsh environments and thus the third design is expected to be in-place by the end of this year. Again, spares will be made available to airline customers as these component design changes are completed.
- This same equity analyst asked a follow-up question. If the GTF engine has 30 percent fewer parts, does that translate to a goal that these engines can be sold a breakeven profitability at introduction? Hayes reply was that Pratt is currently losing money on each GTF engine that is shipped, but that is the reality of commercial aircraft engine development. Returns come in later years, and in the case of GTF, that is planned for the 2018 time-period. Another analyst continued to probe on breakeven expectations.
We have highlighted the above year-end UTC briefing summary statements to provide our readers reinforcement as to how visible supply chain challenges can become in today’s world of ubiquitous information and especially on how investors and equity analysts can now hone-in on supply chain vulnerabilities. The supply chain indeed matters, and investors are becoming more well informed to this tenet.
We expect many Supply Chain Matters readers to have added impressions or feelings regarding UTC’s latest supply chain related disclosures. Questions such as whether Pratt teams were aware of combustor or oil seal issues earlier in the program or whether pressures to meet first and subsequent customer ship milestones were overriding. There may be other questions related to multi-tiered supply chain visibility or early-warning from suppliers. That is not for this specific commentary to address. Certainly not without speaking to those with knowledge.
As noted in October, operations and supply chain executives reviewing this information may identify very discernable symptoms of the interrelationships of product design and management, supply chain sourcing and volume ramp-up planning. This is where the learning comes in.
The looking glass of visibility is very high, and the expectations for enhanced supply chain performance is similarly very high. That is indeed the good and not so good news contrast of today’s industry supply chains.
© Copyright 2016. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.
Our ongoing Supply Chain Matters commentaries regarding certain product design flaws, quality conformance shortfalls and subsequent efforts at covering-up such flaws have drawn similar takeaways, but it now appears that the stakes are growing far higher.
In the case of the diesel engine emissions manipulation scandal involving Volkswagen, the financial, legal and brand impact implications remain ongoing. A company noted for a somewhat tops-down management style and an engineering-driven culture and among one of the two top global producers is learning some tough lessons because of this scandal. Financially, the global tally is now exceeding $20 billion in product recall, legal settlement, and other costs with potentially more remaining.
Last week, in response to U.S. Justice Department investigative efforts, VW admitted guilt in the manipulation of auto emissions standards along with efforts to cover-up such activities. Six individual VW executives were criminally indicted because of the emissions cheating case. One was once responsible for ensuring that vehicles complied with U.S. emissions standards. Five others had senior leadership roles in the product development organization in Germany.
In its plea agreement, VW admitted that its supervisors and employees agreed to deceive regulators and customers regarding the actual emissions performance of engines. According to published reports, the indictment states that some of the supervisors encouraged employees to create software to evade emissions standards.
A published report by both the New York Times, Reuters, and global business network CNBC, cites content taken directly from the U.S. Justice Department indictment. Noted is man identified as “Supervisor B,” who overruled nervous subordinates and allegedly instructed them to develop the overriding software program to defeat emissions readings. According to the court documents, this supervisor instructed the subordinates to not get caught.
Further noted in this report is a statement from the federal indictment indicating: “In 2012, for example, senior executives rebuffed a group of Volkswagen engineers who had discovered the illegal software. The engineers were told to destroy the documents they had prepared showing how the software worked.”
The whole affair represents the first time that the U.S. Justice Department has elected to pursue responsible individual employees as well as companies themselves in such criminal investigation cases and the admission of guilt.
Also last week, a U.S federal grand jury indicted three former Takata Corp. executives, charging them with conspiring to provide auto makers with misleading test reports on rupture-prone air bag inflators at the center of unprecedented products recalls involving upwards of 42 million vehicles involving multiple brands. These executives held senior positions overseeing air bag product management and engineering at the Japan based supplier. Takata itself separately pleaded guilty to criminal wire fraud and agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve a two-year long U.S. Justice Department probe of the supplier’s handling of air bags that risk rupturing and spraying shrapnel in vehicle cabins. The safety problem is linked to 11 deaths and 184 injuries in the U.S. alone. According to court documents, a senior Takata executive at one point directed a junior engineer to remove data showing ruptures during testing from a report later given to an auto maker
Product and quality management professionals with on-the-job experience in regulated industry environments have likely encountered certain situations of organizational tendencies to cover-up potential product, process, or software design flaws. Such tendencies can sometimes come from verbal directives from above to “make the problem go-away.” Often, pressures to make operational and financial performance milestones can motivate such actions.
Yet, with each passing year, the scope and implications of such actions have grown to unprecedented dimensions. And now, these latest actions point to executives and individuals collectively being held criminally accountable for their specific actions.
We need to be clear, we are not at-all dismissing any of these actions and behavior.
Instead, we observe that product and quality management professionals have now been placed in a more precarious role.
Accommodate pressures to make problems go away so that business goals and performance bonuses are met, or stand on principled legal grounds to do the right thing for customers, corporate and individual legal protections. The challenge becomes ever more magnified as increasingly specifications, process performance activities and management actions are stored in digital files and available for internal or external review.
Such actions represent a slippery slope, one that probably does not get adequate attention in employee and management leadership training, but surely will in the coming months.
The notions of “make the problem go-away’ needs to be supplanted by “we all need to do the right thing” for customers and employees. It starts with corporate leadership, culture, ethics and resolve.
Unfortunately, in today’s global business climate of intense pressures for results, the challenge appears to be more elusive, and individual careers and reputations may well suffer the consequences.
© Copyright 2016. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.
Supply Chain Matters provides a further reader update regarding the financial and other effects of the ongoing Volkswagen brand crisis concerning the diesel engine emissions alteration admission scandal that occurred over a year ago.
In late October, the global auto maker was granted final court approval to a $14.7 billion settlement with U.S. based consumers, dealers and government agencies specifically related to two-liter diesel engines that did not meet emissions standards. This week, in a U.S. Federal Court hearing, the global automaker agreed to pay an additional $1 billion to repurchase or fix upwards of 83,000 affected three-liter diesel powered vehicles.
The agreement calls for VW of offer a buyback program that covers 20,000 Audi, Porsche and VW branded vehicles while coming up with a plan to repair the remaining 63,000 vehicles to restore emission conformance. If VW cannot come up with a fix approved by U.S. regulators, the automaker would offer to buy back these vehicles as well. Further included in this added $1 billion settlement is a $225 million to be channeled toward environmental remediation efforts and $25 million to support the use of zero-emissions vehicles in California.
Everything told, the financial cost of ill-advised product design management decision is nearing $16 billion for the U.S. market. That does not count any other subsequent lawsuits that may come from U.S. vehicle owners who feel disgruntled by the existing settlements. Criminal investigations remain ongoing in both the U.S. and in Germany. There are additional logistics and handling costs that will stretch out over the coming months to manage the buyback and disposition of unsold and non-conforming vehicles.
As the New York Times reported in August, Volkswagen owners in the United States will receive an average $20,000 per car as compensation for the company’s diesel deception. VW owners in Europe, however, at most get a software update and a short length of plastic tubing to adjust emissions. That is because European laws shield corporations from class-action suits brought by unhappy consumers. A group of online legal start-ups has been working to change the status quo and has been supporting a campaign to recruit clients en masse and attempt to get around the usual restrictions for consumer lawsuits. If they are successful, the cost to Volkswagen will dwarf the company’s $16 billion settlement in the United States.
This whole affair raises an even more provocative learning regarding a product design management decision. Consider what $16 billion in investment could have created in an alternative energy powered automobile, be that diesel, electric or hybrid in design.
Instead, difficult financial decisions are being made to offset these unplanned expenses, and thousands of VW focused employees may suffer the consequences in job losses. The damage to VW brand and perhaps customer loyalty, is even more troublesome. Now the global automaker must scramble to develop new models of more fuel-efficient vehicles to remain competitive in the industry.
As noted in our prior blog commentaries, a company noted for a somewhat tops-down management style, an engineering-driven culture and among one of the two top global producers continues to absorb some tough lessons because of this scandal. Further, the industry will adsorb some key learning regarding the need for balancing the pressures to introduce market-leading innovative products on a timely basis with organizational tendencies to cover-up potential hardware or software design flaws. This is quite an expensive lesson.