subscribe: Posts | Comments | Email

More on FedEx Acquisition of GENCO and Bongo International

0 comments

This is additional supplement to our previous Supply Chain Matters commentary highlighting FedEx’s latest fiscal third quarter earnings.

In mid- December of 2014, Supply Chain Matters called attention to the FedEx announced acquisition of GENCO, billed as one of the largest 3PL’s in North America operating more than 130 warehouse and distribution facilities. At the time, we also called attention to FedEx’s acquisition of Bongo International, an e-commerce platform that facilitates international customers purchasing items from domestic websites

Based in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania with reported revenues of $1.6 billion, GENCO provides a rather diverse collection of forward and reverse logistics services including distribution, contract packaging, customer returns processing product refurbishment, disposition and recycling. FedEx executives positioned this acquisition as significantly expanding FedEx services to further include returns, test, repair and remarketing of products.

In late January, FedEx reported that it had closed on the acquisition and that GENCO would operate as a subsidiary led by Todd R. Peters, GENCO’s Chief Executive Officer with future revenues reported under the FedEx Ground business segment.

Today, in a short news brief, The Wall Street Journal indicated that according to its recent quarterly report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that the price paid by FedEx for GENCO was $1.4 billion. FedEx reportedly funded the acquisition using a portion of proceeds from a January debt issuance.

This is rather interesting news since it indicates that FedEx paid less than current GENCO’s existing earnings.  It is perhaps an indication of further factors or monetary considerations or that the close relationship among the two companies was indeed close.

Additionally, FedEx disclosed it paid $42 million in cash from operations for the acquisition of Bongo International LLC.


Industry Disruptor: Tesla and the Automotive Driving Experience

0 comments

We are often reminded that one of the most common traits of industry disruptors is that they think differently.  They challenge the notions of industry norms, current practices and business processes or the leveraged use of technology in product and service delivery.   Telsa Motors Model S

Over the coming weeks, Supply Chain Matters will feature a series commentaries focused on industry disruptors and their implications to existing customer fulfillment.

Fast becoming one of the icons of disruptive thinking approaches is Elon Musk with his current ventures in the automotive and space exploration and aerospace sectors.  The two companies he leads, Tesla Motors and Space Exploration Technologies have each challenged legacy industry practices.

Supply Chain Matters has featured a number of prior commentaries specifically focused on Tesla and how this automotive producer has challenged existing norms in is driving re- thinking in supply chain vertical integration, advanced manufacturing practices, service and distribution strategy. Tesla’s fundamental approach is that an automobile serves as a transportation device that is primarily powered by computer intelligence and the user experience. There is little need for intermediaries or after-market providers.

This week, Tesla has invigorated both social and business media on the news of its latest series of software upgrades planned for the Tesla Model S. At a recent automotive industry conference, Musk declared that it will soon become illegal for humans to take the wheel once the technology of self-driving cars have proven themselves. If you sit in a Tesla vehicle, it’s visually striking that the huge 17 inch LCD screen takes-up more driver attention than a traditional automobile dashboard.  It was designed as such.

Last October, IHS reported on its initial analysis of a teardown of the components of the Tesla Model S with the headline: Is it a Car or an iPad?  The article is impressive and worth a read.

What is extraordinarily impressive is that Tesla’s software upgrades are delivered wirelessly to individual owned consumer vehicles in the truest form of cloud delivery. There is no need for the traditional automotive industry dealer visit. Musk views such upgrades in the same context as updating a laptop computer or a smartphone. He further categories autonomous driving as a “solved-problem”. Last year, Tesla began equipping its Model S with on-board cameras and sensors to be powered by a sophisticated system termed “autopilot”.

Over the coming weeks and months planned upgrades will include functionality that completely puts the driver at-ease regarding the existing range of the car’s battery power. The software analyzes the current driving route, road conditions, topography and location of available battery charging stations. If the car is going to exceed the range and distance to the nearest charging station, a real-time warning is issued along with GPS coordinates to the charging facility. According to Musk, “it makes it almost impossible to run out unless you do it intentionally.”

In an upcoming release 7.0, a new user interface will provide the ability of the car to operate with complete autonomy on highways when the driver lets go of the steering wheel.

In the context of the consumer experience, like Apple, Tesla delivers on design elegance and the interactive user experience. The car you may have purchased one or two years ago, has newer functionality and user experience features delivered by the cloud than when you purchased that vehicle.

For the remainder of automotive related industry, a disruptor such as Tesla will elicit more accelerated innovation in applied technology and the driver experience. Suppliers are already working on more sophisticated processors, sensors, embedded systems and driving aides.

Is it any wonder that when news broke that Apple was working on its own secret development of an electric vehicle, that social media lit-up like fireworks and the automotive industry shuttered.

In today’s industries, change is constant and the termed clock speeds of product innovation are indeed accelerating.  Supply chain teams will invariably be either on-board facilitators or unfortunate obstacles to these changes.

Bob Ferrari

Note: This author is not a current owner of a Tesla automobile nor  a stockholder, rather an observer and enthusiast of automobiles.

 


Report of Alternative Supplier of Automotive Airbag Inflators

Comments Off

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.


General Motors Discloses Cost of Product Recalls

Comments Off

Last year, in what was billed by business and general media as the worst U.S. product safety crisis in recent memory, a series of large scale product recalls among multiple General Motors brands involving upwards of 2.6 million vehicles brought this company to crisis footing as it attempted to restore consumer confidence and establish a new footing for growth.

The defective ignition switch recalls involving thousands of vehicles triggered consequent increased regulatory and business media scrutiny. An additional response among GM’s product teams was to subsequently review all potentially harmful vehicle safety and parts quality issues and err on the side of caution with even more product recalls involving multiple parts issues.

In conjunction with its earnings reporting in October 2014, CEO Mary Barra assembled the company’s top 300 executives to declare that that the company must do what it takes to be the “world’s most valued automotive company”.  That included a renewed more passionate emphasis on quality as well as reliance on an expected crop of planned new models expected to come to market, many of which were shepherded under the leadership of Barra when she previously led new product development. The goal is to have 47 percent of global sales to be fueled by these new models by 2019. Supply Chain Matters has also called reader attention to GM’s goal to further focus on the broader supply chain’s contribution to its renewed business goals.

This week, GM reported what is reported as better than expected financial results for the December-ending fourth quarter. While revenues slipped slightly, GM posted a noteworthy 91 percent increase in profit compared with the year prior quarter.

The full-year results also provided quantification of the costs of product recalls. GM reported $2.8 billion in costs associated with product recalls including the ignition-switch related recalls.  According to reports, GM will likely pay $9000 in profit-sharing to its upwards of 48,000 U.S. hourly employees, somewhat more than actual North American operating results to compensate for the impact of the product recalls.

Thus, at the conclusion of GM’s fiscal year, there is quantification of the specific financial costs of a previous corporate culture that eluded accountability and fostered functional fiefdoms. In what appears to be an increasing global trend, GM is considering appeasing its stockholders with plowing some profits in stock buy-back or increased dividend actions.

Moving forward in the new fiscal year, GM has to strengthen its supplier relationships and foster a climate of joint innovation and accountability for quality. We trust that such efforts would include more financial consideration toward stronger supplier relationships and an increased emphasis on joint quality management monitoring and remediation practices.

Billions of dollars expended in product recalls is better invested in addressing the root causes of either product design or supplier quality practices.

Bob Ferrari


Recall Fallout: Investments in Automotive Parts Traceability and Service Supply Chains

Comments Off

Prediction Ten of our 2015 Predictions for Industry and Global Supply Chains declares that service focused supply chains will garner increased attention and new investment interest. We noted two prime motivations, protecting the brand especially in the light of continuing massive amounts of product recall activity as well as taking advantage of the new opportunities brought forward with connected devices.

This week, in conjunction with the annual North American International Auto Show being held in Detroit, The Wall Street Journal featured an article, Massive Recalls Force Part Makers to Track Defects (Paid subscription of free metered view). The article observes that auto parts makers such as air bag inflator supplier Daicel are investing millions of dollars to improve tracing and lot identifiers of component parts. There are mentions of parts suppliers Aisin Selkl, and Jtekt Corp. significantly investing in parts traceability. Observed is while automotive OEM’s and their associated brands take the bulk of the consumer and regulatory heat around product recalls, quality defects more often reside within parts suppliers. OEM’s are now influencing parts suppliers to amp-up quality measures including easier means to identify production lots and trace parts history. The CEO of NHK Spring, who is also the chairmen of Japan Auto Parts Industries Association is quoted: “Now that supplier names are being mentioned widely, the range of responsibilities that we face is expanding. Not only do we need to face auto makers but also consumers.”  In other words, brand risk has taken on new dimensions in the lower tier of automotive supply chains.

It struck us that such efforts focused on supply practices need to be further complimented by increased capabilities by OEM’s to analyze such quality tracking and tracing data at a far more timely pace.  Providing more prescriptive tagging to such data is  a further consideration.

The takeaway is that indeed, service supply chains are indeed ripe for investment, but require coordinated efforts to leverage input, output and prescriptive information insights that insure more timely identification and response to parts quality or design defects.

Bob Ferrari


Automotive OEM’s Hightened Sensitvity to Value Chain Quality and Service Networks

Comments Off

Prediction Ten of our Supply Chain Matters 2015 Predictions for Industry and Global Supply Chains calls for increased attention and new investment interest for service focused supply chains in the coming year. This includes after-market business process services, service parts and service delivery supply and demand business processes.

The obvious reasons are the unprecedented increases in occurrence of product recalls that add large amounts of consumer negativity towards a brand, especially in the U.S. automotive sector.  Too often, there has been a “throw it over the wall” mentality involving service beyond product sale and thus the after-market service supply chain has lagged in process modernization and investment.

Yesterday, the New York Times published an article, Auto Industry Galvanized After Record Recall Year (paid subscription but complimentary metered view with sign-up).  This article reminds readers that about 700 individual recall announcements involving more than 60 million motor vehicles occurred in 2014 across the United States, double the previous record logged in 2004. The rate of recalls was the equivalent of one in five vehicles currently in the road.  Many of our readers can probably attest to the current situation.

Auto manufacturers have been forced to clean-up years of defects that were either undetected or ignored amidst heightened regulatory scrutiny.

The result is obvious, service supply chains swamped with requirements for numerous replacement parts and service networks buffeted by consumer rage as to why their perceived unsafe vehicles cannot be immediately repaired.  In the care of the massive recalls involving airbag inflators sourced from supplier Takata, product recalls are prioritized for warm region sensitivity along with broader U.S. wide needs.

The Times article observes that sending out notification letters does not suffice, requiring more direct interaction with consumers. That, by our lens, implies more timely information and visibility as to the prioritization of repair campaigns and availability of required repair parts for specific regions.  The article further hints to underreporting of potential product defects or failures.

OEM’s such as Toyota are overhauling safety and product recall practices as well as processes incorporated within its service networks.  Supply Chain Matters has previously highlighted General Motors new brand survival emphasis on up-front product quality and more responsive tracking and detection of potential product problems.  Social media will play a very important role in these new methods including the transmission of product recall information directly to consumers and their individual vehicles.   Legislators continue utilizing the big-stick of criminal prosecution of executives and a means to motivate automotive OEM’s to be more responsive to product quality and overall vehicle safety.

Crisis often brings opportunity, and in the case of service networks, the opportunity is the ability to leverage today’s more advanced technologies related to vehicle sensors, predictive analytics, advanced simulation and scheduling, demand sensing and item-level B2B business network wide visibility among service focused supply chains.

The forces are indeed in motion for greater attention to service supply chain capabilities in the New Year.

Bob Ferrari


« Previous Entries