Archive for the ‘Manufacturing Competitiveness’ Category
Your product costs are twice what they should be.
Your product costs are twice what they should be. That’s right. Twice.
You don’t believe me. But why? Here’s why:
If 50% cost reduction is possible, that would mean you’ve left a whole shitpot of money on the table year-on-year and that would be embarrassing. But for that kind of money don’t you think you could work through it?
If 50% cost reduction is possible, a successful company like yours would have already done it. No. In fact, it’s your success that’s in the way. It’s your success that’s kept you from looking critically at your product costs. It’s your success that’s allowed you to avoid the hard work of helping the design engineering community change its thinking. But for that kind of money don’t you think you could work through it?
Even if you don’t believe 50% cost reduction is possible, for that kind of money don’t you think it’s worth a try?
A Unifying Theory for Manufacturing?
The notion of a unifying theory is tantalizing – one idea that cuts across everything. Though there isn’t one in manufacturing, I think there’s something close: Design simplification through part count reduction. It cuts across everything – across-the-board simplification. It makes everything better. Take a look how even HR is simplified.
HR takes care of the people side of the business and fewer parts means fewer people – fewer manufacturing people to make the product, fewer people to maintain smaller factories, fewer people to maintain fewer machine tools, fewer resources to move fewer parts, fewer folks to develop and manage fewer suppliers, fewer quality professionals to check the fewer parts and create fewer quality plans, fewer people to create manufacturing documentation, fewer coordinators to process fewer engineering changes, fewer RMA technicians to handle fewer returned parts, fewer field service technicians to service more reliable products, fewer design engineers to design fewer parts, few reliability engineers to test fewer parts, fewer accountants to account for fewer line items, fewer managers to manage fewer people.
Before I catch hell for the fewer-people-across-the-board language, product simplification is not about reducing people. (Fewer, fewer, fewer was just a good way to make a point.) In fact, design simplification is a growth strategy – more output with the people you have, which creates a lower cost structure, more profits, and new hires.
A unifying theory? Really? Product simplification?
Your products fundamentally shape your organization. Don’t believe me? Take a look at your businesses – you’ll see your product families in your org structure. Take look at your teams – you’ll see your BOM structure in your org structure. Simplify your product to simplify your company across-the-board. Strange, but true. Give it a try. I dare you.
I don’t know the question, but the answer is jobs.
Some sobering facts: (figure and facts from Matt Slaughter)
- During the Great Recession, US job loss (peak to trough) was 8.4 million payroll jobs were lost (6.1%) and 8.5 million private-sector jobs (7.3%).
- In Sept. 2010 there were 108 million U.S. private-sector payroll jobs, about the same as in March 1999.
- It took 48 months to regain the lost 2.0% of jobs in the 2001 recession. At that rate, the U.S. would again reach 12/07 total payroll jobs around January 2020.
The US has a big problem. And I sure as hell hope we are willing do the hard work and make the hard sacrifices to turn things around.
To me it’s all about jobs. To create jobs, real jobs, the US has got to become a more affordable place to invent, design, and manufacture products. Certainly modified tax policies will help and so will trade agreements to make it easier for smaller companies to export products. But those will take too long. We need something now.
To start, we need affordability through productivity. But not the traditional making stuff productivity, we need inventing and designing productivity.
Here’s the recipe: Invent technology in-country, design and develop desirable products in-country (products that offer real value, products that do something different, products that folks want to buy), make the products in-country, and sell them outside the country. It’s that straightforward.
To me invention/innovation is all about solving technical problems. Solving them more productively creates much needed invention/innovation productivity. The result: more affordable invention/innovation.
To me design productivity is all about reducing product complexity through part count reduction. For the same engineering hours, there are few things to design, fewer things to analyze, fewer to transition to manufacturing. The result: more affordable design.
Though important, we can’t wait for new legislation and trade agreements. To make ourselves more affordable we need to increase productivity of our invention/innovation and design engines while we work on the longer term stuff.
If you’re an engineering leader who wants more about invention/innovation and or design productivity, send me an email at
and use the subject line to let me know which you’re interested in. (Your contact information will remain confidential and won’t be shared with anyone. Ever.)
Together we can turn around the country’s economy.
Our fear is limiting DoD’s Affordability Quest
The DoD wants to save money, but they can’t do it alone. But can they possibly succeed? Do they have fighting a chance? Can they get it done? Wrong pronouns.
Can we possibly succeed?
Do we have a fighting chance?
Can we get it done?
In difficult times it’s easy to be critical of others, to make excuses, to look outside. (They, they, they.) In difficult times it’s hard find the level 5 courage to be critical ourselves, to take responsibility, to look inside. (We, we, we.) But we must look inside because that’s where the answer is. We know our work best; we’re the only ones who can reinvent our work; we’re the ones who can save money; we’re responsible.
Changing our actions, our work, is scary, but that’s what the DoD is asking for; we must overcome our fear. But to overcome it we must acknowledge it, see it as it is, and work through it.
Here’s the DoD’s challenge: “Contractors – provide us more affordable systems.” There are two ways we can respond.
The fear-based response (the they response): The DoD won’t accept the changes. In fact, they’ve never liked change. They’ll say no to any changes. They always have.
The seeing things as they are response (the we response): We must try, since not trying is the only way to guarantee failure. Things are different now. Change is acceptable. However, the facts are we don’t know what changes to propose, we don’t know what creates cost, and we don’t know how to design low cost, low complexity systems. We were never taught. We need to develop our capability if we’re to be successful.
The they response: Their MIL specs dictate the design and they won’t budge on them. They’ll say no to any changes. They always have.
The we response: We must try, since not trying is the only way to guarantee failure. Things are different now. Change is acceptable. However, the facts are we don’t know why we designed it that way, we don’t know all that much about the design, we don’t know what creates cost, and we don’t know how to design low cost, low complexity systems. We were never taught. We need to develop our capability if we’re to be successful.
The they response: All they care about is performance. They are driving the complexity. And when push comes to shove, they don’t care about cost. They’ll say no to any changes. They always have.
The we response: We must try, since not trying is the only way to guarantee failure. Things are different now. Change is acceptable. However, the facts are we don’t know what truly controls performance, we don’t know what we can change, we don’t know the sensitivities, we don’t know what creates cost, and we don’t know how to design low cost, low complexity systems. We were never taught. We need to develop our capability if we’re to be successful.
The DoD has courageously told us they want to overcome their fear. Let’s follow their lead and overcome ours. It will be good for everyone.
What if labor was free?
The chase for low cost labor is still alive and well. And it’s still a mistake. Low cost labor is fleeting. Open a plant in a low cost country and capitalism takes immediate hold. Workers see others getting rich off their hard work and demand to be compensated. It’s an inevitable death spiral to a living wage. Time to find the next low cost country.
The truth is labor costs are an extremely small portion of product cost. (The major cost, by far, is the material and the associated costs of moving it around the planet and managing its movement.) And when design engineers actively design out labor costs (50% reductions are commonplace) it becomes so small it should be ignored altogether. That’s right – ignored. No labor costs. Free labor. What would you do if labor was free?
Eliminate labor costs from the equation and it’s clear what to do. Make it where you can achieve the highest product quality, make it where you can run the smallest batches, and make it where you sell it. Design out labor and you’re on your way.
Design engineers are the key. Only they can design out labor. Management can’t do it without engineers, but engineers can do it without management.
A call to arms for design engineers: organize yourselves, design out labor, and force your company to do the right thing. Your kids and your economy will thank you.
Manufacturing!
Manufacturing creates value to pay for schools.
A
Manufacturing creates value to pay for healthcare.
A
Manufacturing creates value to build and maintain infrastructure.
A
Manufacturing creates value to pay mortgages.
A
Manufacturing creates jobs.
Cure for offshoring: The design side of product development, from Machine Design
A recent article written by Leslie Gordon of Machine Design.
You have probably seen it yourself: images of Chinese workers toiling in mud-floored factories, each feeding a separate punch press, as if part and parcel of a living, progressive die. The lure of this cheap labor has sent many U.S. manufacturers scrambling overseas to cut production costs.
Although design-for-manufacturing tools that would have made this exodus unnecessary have been around for more than 20 years, companies continue to overlook them, says Mike Shipulski, chief engineer of plasma-cutter manufacturer Hypertherm, hypertherm.com, Hanover, N.H. “Companies are sticking their heads in the sand. Many U.S. firms have become too entrenched in doing things the same way. For example, a typical product-cost breakdown shows material to be the largest cost at about 72%. Overhead is around 24% and labor is only about 4%. The question becomes, why continue to move manufacturing to so-called ‘low-cost countries’ to chase 50% labor reductions for a whopping 2% cost reduction? And it’s sillier than that because companies don’t account for cost increases in shipping and quality control.”
The problem is that companies neglect to efficiently account for cost during the design side of product development….
The design community has the biggest lever
In sourcing, out sourcing, off shoring, on shoring – the manufacturing debate rages. So what’s the big deal? Jobs – the foundation of an economy. Jobs pay for things, important things like food, schools, and healthcare. No jobs, no economy. The end.
What does lean, the most successful manufacturing business methodology, have to say about all this? Lean’s fundamental:
a
Make it where you sell it
a
because the shortest supply chains are least wasteful. Dig the ore in-country, make the steel in-country, forge it, machine it, and sell it in-country. With, of course, some qualifiers, some important ifs:
- If in-country demand is high enough to warrant the investment
- If your company is big enough to pull it off
- If quality can be assured.
All good, but I’m discouraged by what lean does not say:
- Regardless of the country, engage the design community to reduce material cost and waste
- Regardless of the factory, engage design community to make your factory output like two
- Regardless of the industry, engage design community to reduce part count.
We all agree the design community has the biggest influence on cost and waste, yet they’re not part of the lean equation. That’s wasteful. That violates a fundamental. That makes me sad.
Let’s put aside our where-to-make-it arguments for a bit, and, wherever you make product,
a
Engage the design community in lean.
Bring It Back
Companies (and countries) are slowly learning that moving manufacturing to low cost countries is a big mistake, a mistake of economy-busting proportion. (More costly than any war.) With labor costs at 10% of product cost, saving 20% on labor yields a staggering 2% cost savings. 2%. Say that out loud. 2%. Are you kidding me? 2%? Really? Moving machines all over the planet for 2%? What about cost increases from longer supply chains, poor quality, and loss of control? Move manufacturing to a country with low cost labor? Are you kidding me? Who came up with that idea? Certainly not a knowledgeable manufacturing person. Don’t chase low cost labor, design it out.
(I feel silly writing this. This is so basic. Blocking-and-tackling. Design 101. But we’ve lost our way, so I will write.)
Use Design for Assembly (DFA) and Design for Manufacturing (DFM) to design out 25-50% of the labor time and make product where you have control. The end. Do it. Do it now. But do it for the right reasons – throughput, and quality. (And there’s that little thing about radical material cost reduction which yield cost savings of 20+%, but that’s for another time).
The real benefit of labor reduction is not dollars, it’s time. Less time, more throughput. Half the labor time, double the throughput. One factory performs like two. Bring it back. Fill your factories. Repeat the mantra and you’ll bring it back:
Half the labor and one factory performs like two.
QC stands for Quality Control. No control, no quality. Ever try to control things from 10 time zones in the past? It does not work. It has not worked. Bring it back. Bring back your manufacturing to improve quality. Your brand will thank you. Put the C back in QC – bring it back.
Forward this to your highest level Design Leaders. Tell them they can turn things around; tell them they’re the only ones who can pull it off; tell them we need; tell them we’re counting on them; tell them we’ll help; tell them to bring it back.
Top 10 signs your labor costs are too low
Your purchasing manager was just fired due to skyrocketing shipping costs now that you build product in a country with low cost labor.
You must hold a national press conference to explain how lead paint was put on your product by your supplier in a country with low cost labor.
You get up at 3:00 a.m. (for the fourth night in a row) to talk about a quality problem with a factory in a country with low cost labor.
You must cancel your lean projects because all your black belts are still solving quality problems in a country with low cost labor.
Though you have many half empty factories in your home country, you have a plan to build a new one in country with low cost labor.
Your best manufacturing leader just quit (via text message) because she wants to live with her family and not in a country with low cost labor.
Your purchasing manager’s brand new replacement was just fired because inventory carrying costs are through the roof now that you build product in a country with low cost labor.
You must find a landfill to bury three months of bad product now on a slow boat from a country with low cost labor.
Your new product launch is delayed because you have to tear down the machines and move them to a country with low cost labor.
The financial types that run your company are too far removed from the work so their only trick is to move it to a country with low cost labor.
What if manufacturing mattered?
What if it was cool to make stuff? What if we advertised manufacturing’s coolness like we advertise beer and cigarettes? Who would be the celebrity spokesman?
What if we took as much pride in university manufacturing programs as with their football programs? What if great manufacturing programs were as profitable as great football programs? What if fans jammed college stadiums every Saturday to cheer manufacturing competitions? What if they were televised like football games? Who would host the pre-game show?
What if manufacturing was valued like professional sports? The World Series of Manufacturing, The Super Bowl of Manufacturing, The World Cup of Manufacturing? Who would do color commentary?
What if manufacturing thought leaders were celebrated like sports legends? What would kids want to be when they grew up? Whose face would be on the cereal boxes?
What if government understood the importance of manufacturing? Who would lead the charge?